Julius Kessler & Co. v. E.F. Perilloux & Co.
| Decision Date | 08 April 1902 |
| Docket Number | 12,982. |
| Citation | 127 F. 1011 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana |
| Parties | JULIUS KESSLER & CO. v. E. F. PERILLOUX & CO. |
Lazarus & Luce, for plaintiff.
Henry L. Garland, for defendants.
The court finds that the plaintiff is a corporation created under the laws of the state of West Virginia, and that it has not complied with any of the requirements of said article 264 of the present Constitution of the state of Louisiana.
The court finds that a duly authorized agent of said plaintiff corporation came to the city of New Orleans, and sold in said city, to the defendants, certain whiskies, which were then in the state of Kentucky, but were to be, after said sale shipped from the state of Kentucky to the defendants in New Orleans.
The court finds that the notes sued upon, or notes of which the same are renewals, were given at the time of the sale in said city by the defendants to the plaintiff corporation in consideration of said sale, and that said notes were all payable in said city.
The court further finds that the above matters constituted an act of interstate commerce.
Findings of Law.
Article 264 of the present Constitution of the state of Louisiana is identical in language with article 236 of the preceding state Constitution of 1879, with the only exception that article 264 is made applicable to domestic as well as foreign corporations. Act No. 149, p. 188, of the Louisiana Legislature of 1890, the object of which was to carry into effect said article 236 of the Constitution of 1879, specially excepts 'mercantile corporations' from the operation of said article of the Constitution. That act appears to be still in force. See State ex rel Watkins v. Land & Timber Company, 106 La. 627, 31 So 172, 87 Am.St.Rep. 309. The case just mentioned has been cited in the brief of defendants' counsel as being a case supporting his views, but the opinion in that case opens with the statement that as the corporation involved in the case was 'engaged neither in commerce, nor in the service of the federal government, it was within the power of the state of Louisiana to exclude it from her territory, or to admit it upon such condition, reasonable or unreasonable, as she thought proper to impose.'
Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law (2d Ed.) vol. 13, pp. 860, 861, verbis, 'Foreign Corporations,' after stating that a state has the right to exclude any foreign corporation from doing business within its limits, says:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Bayer
......208; Ex parte Loeb,. 72 F. 657; In re Bergen, 115 F. 339; Kessler v. Perilloux, 127 F. 1011; Shoe Co. v. Rubber Co.,. 156 F. 1; Ex parte ......
-
Kirven v. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co.
...through an agent or firm resident in the state, and notes are given in settlement in the state and payable in the stat. Kessler v. Perilloux (C.C.) 127 F. 1011; Welton v. Missouri, 91 U.S. 275, 23 L.Ed. Davis, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Dix (C.C.) 64 F. 406. It has however, been held that this inter......
-
Edward Sales Co. v. Harris Structural Steel Co.
...steel into this state was an act of interstate commerce, and is not to be construed as doing business in the state. Julius Kessler & Co. v. Perilloux (C. C.) 127 F. 1011; Buck Stove v. Vickers, 226 U. S. 205, 33 S. Ct. 41, 57 L. Ed. 189; Vaughn Co. v. Lighthouse, 64 App. Div. 138, 71 N. Y. ......
-
Julius Kessler & Co. v. E.F. Perilloux & Co.
...not also a Louisiana-created corporation. This exception seems to have been acted on and overruled by the court on the 8th of April, 1902 (127 F. 1011). defendants on April 10, 1902, filed a lengthy pleading entitled 'Answer and Reconventional Demand.' The matters averred and relief prayed ......