Hamilton v. Reeves & Company

Decision Date09 April 1904
Docket Number13,438
Citation76 P. 418,69 Kan. 844
CourtKansas Supreme Court
PartiesC. E. HAMILTON v. REEVES & COMPANY, a Corporation, etc

Decided January, 1904.

Error from Rice district court; ANSEL R. CLARK, judge.

Judgment affirmed.

Samuel Jones, and C. F. Foley, for plaintiff in error.

John D. Milliken, D. P. Lindsay, and S. H. Jones, for defendant in error.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Reeves & Company, a foreign corporation, brought action against C. E. Hamilton to recover the possession of certain machinery under a chattel mortgage, and recovered The defendant brings this proceeding to reverse the judgment.

The only serious errors assigned are based upon the claim that the plaintiff, by failure to comply with the statutes relating to foreign corporations doing business in the state, was disqualified to take the chattel mortgage or to, maintain the action. The fact that the statute had not been complied with at the time of the execution of the contract does not make the contract void. (The State v. Book Co., ante, page 1.) Before the commencement of the action, and, indeed, before the taking of the mortgage, the plaintiff had made application to the state charter board under chapter 10 of the Laws of 1898 for authority to do business in the state, which application was taken under consideration by the board. On December 20, 1901, plaintiff complied fully with the provisions of chapter 127 of the Laws of 1901, allowing foreign corporations, under certain conditions, to take and enforce liens on real or personal property. The trial was had January 20, 1902. Inasmuch as at the time of trial plaintiff's incapacity had been removed the judgment will not be reversed because the statute had not been fully complied with at the time the action was begun. (The State v. Book Co., supra.)

The judgment is affirmed.

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Gould Land and Cattle Company v. The Rocky Mountain Bell Telephone Company
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • May 29, 1909
    ...Zinc Co., 120 F. 896; State v. Ins. Ass'n., 61 Ark. 1; Kindel v. Beck, 19 Colo. 310; Vt. L. & T. Co. v. Hoffman, 5 Idaho 376; Hamilton v. Reeves, 69 Kan. 844; Hallam v. Ashford, 70 S.W. 197, Enterprise B. Co. v. Crimes, 173 Mass. 252; Tollerton v. Barck, 84 Minn. 497; Trust Co. v. R. Co., 8......
  • Hogan v. Intertype Corp.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • October 7, 1918
    ...... from suit in behalf of the Merganthaler Linotype Company. 65. Am. Rep. 186; 68 Mich. 303; 42 Miss. 795; 47 Ark. 351. . .          Joe. Hardin ... restored, even if such step is taken after an action is. begun. Hamilton v. Reeves & Co., 69 Kan. 844, 76 P. 418. When it ceases to do business in the State,. it is no ......
  • International Trust Co. v. A. Leschen & Sons Rope Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Colorado
    • November 4, 1907
    ......Russell, Judge. . . Action. by the A. Leschen & Sons Rope Company against the. International Trust Company and another. From a judgment for. plaintiff, defendant ...1, 76 P. 411, 1 L.R.A. (N. S.) 1041, Deere v. Wyland,. 69 Kan. 255, 76 P. 863, and Hamilton v. Reeves & Co., 69 Kan. 844, 76 P. 418.'. . . We. think that the purpose of the ......
  • National Fertilizer Co. v. Fall River Five Cents Sav. Bank
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • November 26, 1907
    ......1, 76 P. 411, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1041; Deere v. Wyland, 69 Kan. 255, 261, 76 P. 863; Hamilton v. Reeves, 69 Kan. 844, 76 P. 418; Ryan Livestock & Feeding Co. v. Kelly, 71 Kan. 874, 81 P. 470;. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT