Knoxville Nursery Co. v. Com.

• Decision Date: 10 March 1900
• Citation: 108 Ky. 6,55 S.W. 691
• Parties: KNOXVILLE NURSERY CO. v. COMMONWEALTH. [1]
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

55 S.W. 691

108 Ky. 6

KNOXVILLE NURSERY CO. v. COMMONWEALTH. ^[1]

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 10, 1900

Appeal from circuit court, Crittenden county.

"To be officially reported."

The Knoxville Nursery Company was convicted of the offense of carrying on business without filing in the secretary of state's office a statement giving location of its office or offices in the state, and the name of its agents upon whom process could be served, and it appeals. Affirmed.

Jas. A Moore, Jno. A. Moore, and A. C. Moore, for appellant.

Clifton J. Pratt, for appellee.

DU RELLE, J.

Appellant was indicted under section 571, Ky. St., which provides that "all corporations except foreign insurance companies formed under the laws of this or any other state, and carrying on any business in this state, shall at all times have one or more known places of business in this state, and an authorized agent or agents thereat, upon whom process can be served; and it shall not be lawful for any corporation to carry on any business in this state until it shall have filed in the office of the secretary of state a statement, signed by its president or secretary, giving the location of its office or offices in this state, and the name or names of its agent or agents thereat upon whom process can be served," etc.

It is urged, as ground of reversal of the judgment of conviction that the demurrer to the indictment should have been sustained because it did not properly name the offense in the language of the statute, and because in describing the defendant as a foreign corporation it failed to state that it was not a foreign insurance company. We do not regard either of these objections as tenable. The indictment gives "a brief general description in the language of the statute" by the words, "accuse the Knoxville Nursery Company of the offense of carrying on business in this state without filing in the secretary of state's office a statement giving location of its office or offices in this state, and the name of its agents upon whom process could be served." The description of the offense seems to us to be ample, under the ruling in Daviess Gravel-Road Co. v. Com., 14 Ky. Law Rep. 812. The other objection, that no words of exclusion were used as to defendant being a foreign insurance company, seems to be met by the averment that the defendant "did unlawfully carry on its business of selling fruit trees and delivering them to various parties in Crittenden county," etc., which we think sufficiently negatived the idea that the defendant was a foreign insurance company.

It is next objected that the court erred in permitting incompetent evidence to go to the jury, viz. a certified copy of a statement of appellant filed in the office of the secretary of state in May, 1898, the year following that in which the sales and deliveries were proved to have been made, but bearing date October 15, 1897, after the sales, but before the delivery; it being urged that the certificate was not the best evidence of the fact...