Gulledge Brothers Lumber Company v. Wenatchee Land Company
| Decision Date | 11 July 1913 |
| Docket Number | 18,140 - (178) |
| Citation | 142 N.W. 305,122 Minn. 266 |
| Parties | GULLEDGE BROTHERS LUMBER COMPANY v. WENATCHEE LAND COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Original Opinion Filed June 27, 1913
Penal statute -- enforcement in another state.
1. The question whether a statute of one state, which in some aspects may be called penal, is a penal law in the international sense, so that it cannot be enforced in the courts of another state, depends upon the question whether its purpose is to punish an offense against the public justice of the state, or to afford a private remedy to a person injured by the wrongful act.
Nonpayment of license fee -- penalty not enforceable in Minnesota.
2. Plaintiff is a corporation created under the laws of the state of Washington. The statutes of Washington require corporations to pay an annual license fee, and provide as a penalty for nonpayment of such fee that no corporation in default thereof shall be permitted to maintain any action in the courts of that state. Plaintiff was in default of payment of such license fee when this action was brought. The supreme court of Washington has construed these statutes as revenue acts pure and simple, has held that the provisions thereof are for the purpose of enabling the state to enforce the payment of its revenue, and that a corporation in default does not forfeit the right to exist but continues to be a corporation until a forfeiture is adjudicated by proper proceedings in a proper court. Held: That the purpose of the acts is to punish an offense against the public justice of the state of Washington, that they are of the class of penal acts which will not be enforced outside of the state where they were enacted, and that plaintiff may maintain an action in this state.
Dissolution of corporation.
3. The principle that a corporation which has been dissolved by proper proceedings in the state of its creation could not thereafter commence or maintain an action in any other state, is not applicable to this case since, according to the laws of Washington, the plaintiff corporation has not been dissolved.
On July 11, 1913, the following order was filed:
Petition on Rehearing
Defendant on petition for rehearing cites the case of Soderberg v McRae, 70 Wash. 235, 126 P. 538, to the effect that when a corporation is dissolved under the statute cited in the opinion, the property of the corporation passes immediately...
To continue reading
Request your trial