Goldberry v. Carter
Decision Date | 19 June 1902 |
Citation | 100 Va. 438,41 S.E. 858 |
Parties | GOLDBERRY v. CARTER. |
Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
FOREIGN CORPORATIONS—DOING BUSINESS IN STATE.
Code, § 1105, making officers, agents, and employes of foreign corporations liable for their debts where such corporations do business in the state without complying with the provisions of Code, § 1104 requiring the establishment of an office, the filing of its charter, and the appointment of an agent, does not apply to a contract made out of the state by which title to land in the state is acquired.
Appeal from circuit court, Wise county.
Action by Henry Carter against N. T. Goldberry. Decree for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.
R. T. Irvine, for appellant.
W. H. Bond and G. J. Holbrook, for appellee.
This suit was instituted for the purpose, among others, of obtaining a personal decree against the appellant for a debt due to the appellee by the Glenn Lincoln Coal & Coke Company, a corporation chartered under the laws of the state of West Virginia, and in which company the appellant was a director.
The case made by the bill is that whilst the appellant was a director in that company it did business in this state in violation of the provisions of section 1104 of the Code, and that for such failure the appellant, its other officers, agents, and employes, became personally liable for the debts due from the company to the appellee, a resident of this state, under the provisions of sections 1104 and 1105 of the Code. These sections are as follows:
The appellant in his answer denied the material allegations of the bill; but upon a hearing of the cause upon the bill, answer, exhibits, depositions, and the oral admission of the appellant that the company did business in this state without recording a copy of its charter, as required by section 1104, the court was of opinion that the appellant was liable for the appellee's debt, and so decreed. Prom that decree this appeal was allowed.
Numerous...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wyoming Construction and Development Co. v. Buffalo Lumber Co.
......Ladd, 160 Mo. 435, 61 S.W. 191; Land. Co. v. San Antonio T. Co., 95 Tex. 252, 66 S.W. 768;. Meddis v. Kenney (Mo.), 75 S.W. 633; Goldberry. v. Carter, 100 Va. 438, 41 S.E. 658.) Especially where. ownership is evidenced by stock in the corporation holding. the title. ( Commonwealth v. ......
-
Rachels v. Stecher Cooperage Works
...60 Ark. 120; 35 S.W. 898; 101 Mo.App. 569; 116 Ill. 375; 197 Mo. 507; 71 Ala. 60; 33 N.E. 166; 103 Ala. 371; 15 So. 944; 41 L.Ed. 817; 100 Va. 438; 77 Ark. 203; 60 Ark. 120; 102 Mo. 413; Ark. 625; 19 A. B. R. 361; 124 Mo.App. 349; 8 Gray 206; 6 Biss. 420; 41 Ind. 1; 25 Wend. 648; 37 Mo. 398......
-
Bettilyon Home Builders Co. v. Philbrick
...1276, 1310; Miller v. Williams, 27 Colo. 34, 59 P. 740; Security Co. v. Pan Handle Nat. Bank, 93 Tex. 575, 57 S.W. 22; Goldsberry v. Carter, 100 Va. 438, 41 S.E. 858; 19 Cyc. 1279, sec. 4, citing the cases of People's Bldg., Loan & Sav. Assn. v. Berlin, 201 Pa. 1, 88 Am. St. 764, 50 A. 308;......
-
Continental Properties, Inc. v. Ullman Co.
...147 Va. 235, 136 S.E. 646 (1927); Knights of the Ku Klux Klan v. Commonwealth, 138 Va. 500, 122 S.E. 122 (1924); Goldsberry v. Carter, 100 Va. 438, 41 S.E. 858 (1902). 6 What constitutes "acts preliminary to doing business" was discussed by the Supreme Court of Illinois in Automotive Materi......