Kansas City Structural Steel Co v. State of Arkansas Ashley County

Decision Date16 November 1925
Docket NumberNo. 54,54
Citation46 S.Ct. 59,269 U.S. 148,70 L.Ed. 204
PartiesKANSAS CITY STRUCTURAL STEEL CO. v. STATE OF ARKANSAS, for Use and Benefit of ASHLEY COUNTY
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Messrs. Armwell L. Cooper, or Kansas City, Mo., and Charles T. Coleman and J. W. House, Jr., both of Little Rock, Ark., for plaintiff in error.

Mr. J. R. Wilson, of El Dorado, Ark., for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice BUTLER delivered the opinion of the Court.

Plaintiff in error, a corporation organized under the laws of Missouri, brings here for review (section 237, Judicial Code (Comp. St. § 1214)) a judgment of the Supreme Court of Arkansas which affirmed a judgment of the circuit court of Shelby county imposing a fine of $1,000 on plaintiff in error for doing business in Arkansas without obtaining permission. The laws of the state require every corporation incorporated in any other state, doing business in Arkansas, to file in the office of the secretary of state certain evidence of its organization and a financial statement, to designate its general office and place of business in Arkansas, and to name an agent there and authorize process to be served upon him. It is provided that any corporation which shall do business in Arkansas without having complied with these requirements shall be subject to a fine of not less than $1,000. Sections 1825-1832, Crawford & Moses' Digest of Laws of Arkansas.

Plaintiff in error contends that, as applied in this case, the state enactments are repugnant to the commerce clause of the federal Constitution.

The material facts are these: May 3, 1921, plaintiff in error made a bid to the Wilmot road district for the construction of a steel bridge near Wilmot, in Ashley county, Ark. Its offer was accepted, and on that day a contract covering the work was signed in Arkansas by the representatives of the parties. The contract was not to become effective until a bond was given by the contractor to secure its faithful performance. The bond was executed in Missouri two days later. June 14, 1921, plaintiff in error sublet all the work except the erection of the steel superstructure to the Yancy Construction Company, a partnership whose members were residents of Kansas. August 17, 1921, plaintiff in error secured permission, as required by the laws of Arkansas, to do business in that state. Before such permission was obtained, the greater part of the work sublet had been completed; plaintiff in error had made certain shipments of steel, consisting of reinforcing rods, steel piers, tubes and angles from Kansas City, Mo., to itself at Wilmot, Ark., for use in the construction of the bridge; and these materials had been delivered to the subcontractor and used in the performance of the work done by it. The steel for the superstructure was fabricated by plaintiff in error in its plant in Kansas City, some before and some after the permission was obtained.

The Supreme Court of Arkansas held that the things done by plaintiff in error before August 17, 1921, constituted intrastate business in Arkansas. But the plaintiff in error contends that all was interstate commerce. We accept the decision of the Supreme Court of Arkansas as to what constitutes the doing of business in that state within the meaning of its own laws. Georgia v. Chattanooga, 264 U. S. 472, 483, 44 S. Ct. 369, 68 L. Ed. 796. But this court will determine for itself whether what was done by plaintiff in error was interstate commerce and whether the state enactments as applied are repugnant to the commerce clause. Plain- tiff in error cites Dahnke-Walker Milling Co. v. Bondurant,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
43 cases
  • Kenny v. Alaska Airlines
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • June 13, 1955
    ...Art Bronze Co., 3 Cir., 1953, 202 F.2d 541, at page 542, quotes a pre-Erie decision, Kansas City Structural Steel Co. v. State of Arkansas, 1925, 269 U.S. 148, 150, 46 S.Ct. 59, 70 L.Ed. 204, as "`We accept the decision of the Supreme Court of Arkansas as to what constitutes the doing of bu......
  • Atlas Elevator Co. v. Presiding Judge of Circuit Court of First Circuit
    • United States
    • Hawaii Supreme Court
    • March 24, 1966
    ...was interstate and whether local enactments as applied are repugnant to the commerce clause. Kansas City Structural Steel Co. v. State of Arkansas, 269 U.S. 148, 150, 46 S.Ct. 59, 70 L.Ed. 204. The interstate commerce clause has been successfully used by foreign corporations as a magic wand......
  • Ute Indian Tribe v. State of Utah
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Utah
    • June 19, 1981
    ...this Court bound by the doctrine of stare decisis to follow state court interpretations of federal law, Kansas City Steel Co. v. Arkansas, 269 U.S. 148, 46 S.Ct. 59, 70 L.Ed. 204 (1925). Any persuasive effect the opinion in Brough v. Appawora may have had was effectively negated by the Unit......
  • Fisk v. Wellsville Fire Brick Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 12, 1941
    ... ... doctrine that when a suit brought in one state ... upon a judgment rendered by a court of ... 23 Amer. Juris., p. 378, sec. 380; Kansas City Structural ... Steel Co. v. Arkansas, 269 ... just outside Wellsville, Montgomery County, Missouri. In ... October, 1936, defendant sold ... ...
  • 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