Florsheim Bros. Dry-Goods Co. v. Lester

• Decision Date: 05 January 1895
• Citation: 29 S.W. 34
• Parties: FLORSHEIM BROS. DRY-GOODS CO. v. LESTER et al.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

29 S.W. 34

FLORSHEIM BROS. DRY-GOODS CO. v. LESTER et al.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

January 5, 1895.

Appeal from circuit court, Lafayette county; Charles W. Smith, Judge.

Bill by the Florsheim Bros. Dry-Goods Company against Lester & Lester. From an order overruling its demurrer to the answer, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

The appellant, a foreign corporation, organized under the laws of the state of Louisiana, and doing business at Shreveport, in said state, through its president took a mortgage from the appellees at New Lewisville, in the state of Arkansas, to secure the payment of $1,600, with interest, which the appellees owed it for the purchase price of goods sold them on a credit, the debt having matured at the time the mortgage was given. This suit was brought in equity, to foreclose said mortgage, in the Lafayette circuit court. The defense was made that the appellant was a foreign corporation, and that it had failed to comply with section 11, art. 12, of the constitution of Arkansas, which provides that "foreign corporations may be authorized to do business in the state, under such limitations and restrictions as may be prescribed by law, provided that no corporation shall do any business in this state except while it maintains therein one or more known places of business, and an authorized agent or agents in the same, upon whom process may be served." The act of the legislature passed in pursuance of this section of the constitution is that, "before any foreign corporation shall begin to carry on business in the state, it shall, by its certificate, under the hand of the president and seal of the company, filed in the office of the secretary of state, designating an agent, who shall be a citizen of this state, upon whom service, summons and other process may be served," etc. Acts 1887, p. 234, § 1. A further defense was that the suit was brought before the lapse of the time for which an extension had been given, after maturity of the mortgage; but as there was a decision against the appellees upon this defense, and they have not appealed, no question in relation to it is before this court. The demurrer was overruled as to the first defense.

T. E. Webber, for appellant. L. A. Byrne, for appellees.

HUGHES, J. (after stating the facts).

The only question in this case is whether the taking of a single mortgage in this state, by a foreign corporation, for a past-due indebtedness for goods sold in the foreign state, the domicile of the foreign corporation, is doing business in this state, within the meaning of the constitution and the act of the general assembly above quoted. There can be no doubt that the sale and shipment of the goods was interstate commerce. It does not matter, then, how many...