General Film Co. of Missouri v. General Film Co. of Maine
| Decision Date | 20 October 1916 |
| Docket Number | 4637. |
| Citation | 237 F. 64 |
| Parties | GENERAL FILM CO. OF MISSOURI v. GENERAL FILM CO. OF MAINE. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
William R. Gilbert, of St. Louis, Mo. (S. H. West, Roscoe Anderson and A. L. levi, all of St. Louis, Mo., on the brief), for appellant.
John S Wright, of Kansas City, Mo. (Armwell L. Cooper and Hadley Cooper, Neel & Wright, all of Kansas City, Mo., on the brief), for appellee.
Before HOOK and SMITH, Circuit Judges, and AMIDON, District Judge.
The General Film Company of Maine is one of the largest corporations engaged in the business of producing and selling moving picture films. Its trade extends throughout the country. St. Louis, Mo., has been one of the centers of its operations. From that branch it supplied an extensive trade in several adjoining states. By the law of Missouri a foreign corporation cannot do business in that state without taking out a license. A violation of the statute is punishable by fine, and the statute also provides that the corporation shall not be permitted to maintain any action upon any contract made in the state during the default. The General Film Company of Maine failed to comply with this statute although it was doing an extensive business in the state. Some citizens of St. Louis, who had been engaged in the business of supplying moving picture films under a proper name, discovered that the General Film Company of Maine had failed to comply with the statutes of Missouri, and, for the purpose of pirating its business, organized the General Film Company of Missouri. Its capital stock was only $5,000 at first, but it now has been increased to $25,000. It has engaged in the same lines of business as the older company, and by its method of conducting business has deceived the public, and caused it to believe that the General Film Company of Missouri is in fact the General Film Company of Maine.
The General Film Company of Missouri, after its incorporation, filed its bill in equity, alleging its incorporation, and right to use its corporate name, and setting forth that the General Film Company of Maine was doing business in the state in violation of local law and to the prejudice of the plaintiff. It asked an injunction restraining the defendant from the use of the name 'General Film Company.' The defendant filed its answer, admitting its failure to comply with the local law respecting foreign corporations, and denying the other allegations of the bill. It also filed a cross-bill, setting up the fraudulent purpose of the incorporation of plaintiff, and the fraudulent and piratical manner in which its business was carried on. To this cross-bill the plaintiff demurred. A stipulation was filed in court, signed by counsel for both parties, that the cause should be submitted upon the bill, answer, cross-bill, and demurrer; 'the intention and desire of both parties being that all matters involved in this controversy may be taken up and submitted at one hearing and fully disposed of by the court in its decision, except that neither party hereby waives its right to appeal to a higher court from such decision or decree. ' The demurrer was overruled, and a decree entered in favor of the defendant upon its cross-bill, enjoining the plaintiff from using the name 'General Film Company,' or any name of similar import. To review that decree the plaintiff brings the present appeal.
The plaintiff seeks to secure rights which may be properly asserted only by the state of Missouri. That state alone could complain of the fact that the General Film Company of Maine was doing business in the state without having complied with the statutes in regard to foreign corporations. The plaintiff cannot clothe itself in the panoply of the state as a shield for the fraud which it is seeking to accomplish.
It is claimed, however, with much skill, that it is the duty of the secretary of state, in issuing certificates of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Staples Coal Co. v. City Fuel Co.
...Safe Deposit & Ins. Co. v. Philadelphia Trust Co., C.C., 123 F. 534;General Film Co. of Missouri v. General Film Co. of Maine, 1 Cir., 237 F. 64;Holland Furnace Co. v. New Holland Machine Co., D.C., 24 F.2d 751;Standard Oil Co. of New Mexico, Inc. v. Standard Oil Co. of California, 10 Cir.,......
-
Lawyers Title Ins. Co. v. Lawyers Title Ins. Corporation
...to use its name under a corporate name statute. 25 Newby v. Oregon Central Ry., cit. supra note 24; General Film Co. of Missouri v. General Film Co. of Maine, 8 Cir., 1916, 237 F. 64; Grand Lodge, K. P. of North and South America v. Grand Lodge, K. P., 1911, 174 Ala. 395, 56 So. 963. Cf. Un......
-
Katz Drug Co., a Corp. v. Katz
...... Katz, Appellant Court of Appeals of Missouri, Kansas CityJanuary 10, 1949 [217 S.W.2d 287] . ...v. Sahati, 166 F.2d 348; General. Film Co. of Mo. v. General Film Co. of Maine, ......
-
National Bank in North Kansas City v. Bank of North Kansas City
......, Respondent Court of Appeals of Missouri", Kansas City May 24, 1943 . . \xC2"... a similar name by another corporation on general. common law principles regardless of any ...373, 275 N.W. 324;. General Film Co. of Mo. v. General Film Co. of Me., 237 F. ......