Mahan v. Wyopa Company

• Decision Date: 30 April 1920
• Docket Number: 941
• Citation: 27 Wyo. 17,189 P. 633
• Parties: MAHAN v. WYOPA COMPANY
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

189 P. 633

27 Wyo. 17

MAHAN v. WYOPA COMPANY

No. 941

Supreme Court of Wyoming

April 30, 1920

ERROR to the District Court, Fremont County; HON. CHAS. E. WINTER Judge.

Action by John F. Mahan against the Wyopa Company and E. E. Billow as receiver thereof. Upon a judgment rendered in the state of New York in favor of William R. Edison and against Wyopa Company and thereafter assigned to plaintiff.

Affirmed.

Harry H. Krinsky, Joel F. Longenecker and Marion A. Kline attorneys for plaintiff in error.

The New York judgment is entitled to full faith and credit. (4410 C S. 1920 does not apply to judgments of sister states. Sec. 1 Art. IV, U. S. Const.) The foreign court was one of competent jurisdiction. (Steinhardt v. Baker, 163 N.Y. 410.) The judgment is not open to collateral attack here unless it were permissable in the state of New York. (Bank v. Anderson, 6 Wyo. 518.) In any event the burden of proof rests upon the party attacking. (Gustavous v. Dahlmer, 163 N.Y.S. 132.) If the judgment was valid in the state of New York it was binding upon defendant wherever he may be. (Pope v. Mfg. Co. 87 N.Y. 137.) The service made in the New York case was valid. (St. Louis Ry. Co. v. Alexander 227 U.S. 218; Conn. Ins. Co. v. Spratley, 172 U.S. 602.) In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the law of a sister state will be presumed to be the same as the law of the forum. (Cellulose Co. v. Calhoun, 166 Cal. 513; Mutual Co. v. Devine, 180 Ill.App. 422; Lyons v. Ry. Co. 253 Mo. 143; Grow v. Oregon Co. (Utah) 138 P. 398.) The presumption obtains that the laws of New York authorize actions against foreign corporations the same as Wyoming. (Pope v. Co. 87 N.Y. 137.) No judgment of a court of record is impaired or affected by a mistake in the name of a party or other person where the correct name has been once rightly stated in the pleadings under the New York practice. (721 Civ. Proc.) Errors or defects not affecting the substantial rights of the adverse party are insufficient grounds for reversal. 4438 C. S. 1910 Section 4410 C. S. 1910 requires the party pleading to establish the facts conferring jurisdiction, if controverted. This section is in conflict with the full faith and credit clause of the federal constitution. The court erred in admitting a large amount of incompetent evidence with reference to who was treasurer of defendant, a fact adjudicated by the New York court.

Floyd E. Pendell and Ralph Kimball, for defendant in error.

The transcript shows service upon Darwin Rudd, treasurer of Wyopa Company, a Wyoming corporation. The defendant in this action is a Maine corporation; the record therefore raises no presumption that Rudd was ever the treasurer of the Maine corporation; one Meyer was apparently the treasurer of the Maine coporation. The trial court followed the provisions of Section 4410 C. S. 1910 which requires jurisdictional facts to be established by evidence where controverted by the pleadings; there was no proof of any statute of New York authorizing a suit against a foreign corporation engaged in business in that state; on the contrary, it was shown that defendant was not engaged in business in New York. The full faith and credit clause of the federal constitution applies only to judgments rendered by courts having jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the person. (Gustavas v. Dahlmer, 163 N.Y.S. 132; Smith v. Central Trust Co., 154 N.Y. 338; Shumway v. Stillman, 4 Cow. 292, 296; Pennywit v. Foote, 27 O. St. 600; 22 Am. Rep. 340; Bank of Chadron v. Anderson, 6 Wyo. 518; 7 Wyo. 441; Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 733; 24 L.Ed. 565, 572.) In the absence of statutory authority, a corporation may be sued only in the courts of the state where it was created. (Hann v. Barnegat etc. 7 Civ. Proc. Rep. 222 Gibbs v. Queens Ins. Co., 63 N.Y. 114; St. Clair v. Cox, 106 U.S. 354; Middlebrooks v. Springfield Fire Ins. Co., 14 Conn. 301; Peckham v. Haverhill, 15 Pick. 274, 286; Lathrop v. U. P. Ry. Co., 7 D. E. Ill.; Newell v. Great Western Ry. Co., 19 Mich. 336; McNichol v. U. S. Merc. Rep. Co., 74 Mo. 457; Moulin v. Trenton Mut. L. Ins. Co., 24 N.J.L. 222; McQueen v. Middleton Mfg. Co., 16 Johns 5; Brewster v. Mich. Cent. Ry. Co., 5 How. Pr. 183; Halbert v. Hope Mutual Ins. Co., 4 How. Pr. 274; Aldrich v. Anchor etc. Co. 24 Ore. 35; 32 P. 756; Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714.) There is no presumption of jurisdiction in the absence of a statute authorizing suits against foreign corporations. (13 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law 996, 997; 23 Cyc. 1578; Galpin v. Page, 18 Wall. 350; Kelley v. Kelley, 161 Mass. 111; 25 L. R. A. 806; Morse v. Presby, 25 N.H. 299, 302; Holmes v. Broughton, 10 Wend, 75; Harris v. White 81 N.Y. 532, 544; Commonwealth v. Blood, 97 Mass. 538; Lawrence's case, 18 Abb. Pr. 347; Belcher v. Chambers, 53 Cal. 635; Wilhelm v. Parker, 17 O. Cir. Ct. Rep., 234; 9 O. Cir. Dec. 724; Louisiville etc. Co. v. Parish, 6 Ind, App. 89; 33 N.E. 122; Thatcher v. Powell, 6 Wheat. 119; Ferguson v. Jones, 17 Ore., 204; 3 L. R. A. 620.)

In the absence of proof of such a statute the common law ruling is presumed to be in force. (Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Devine 180 Ill.App. 422; Mathieson v. St. Louis Etc. R. R. Co., 219 Mo. 542; Brown v. Wright, 58 Ark. 26; Bance de Sonora v. Bankers Mut. Cas. Co., (Iowa) 95 N.W. 232; Savage v. O'Neal, 44 N. T. 298; Davison v. Gibson, 56 F. 443; Cherry v. Sprague, (Mass.) 67 L. R. A. 33, and note.) A statute authorizing suits against foreign corporations not doing business in the state are void under the due process clause of the federal Const. U. S. Const. fourteenth amend., Section 1. (St. Clair v. Cox., 106 U.S. 359; Henning v. Planters Ins. Co. 28 F. 440; Goldey v. Morning News, 156 U.S. 518; 39 L.Ed. 517; St. Louis Wire Mill Co. v. Consolidated Barb Wire Co., 32 F. 802; Hazeltine v. Miss. Valley Fire Ins. Co., 55 F. 743; Clews v. Woodstock Iron Co., 44 F. 31; United States v. Am. Bell Tel. Co., 29 F. 17; Conn. Mut. L. Ins. Co., v. Spratley, 172 U.S. 602; Robert Dollar Company v. Canadian Etc. Co., 220 N.Y. 270; 115 N.E. 711; Riverside & D. R. Cotton Mills v. Menefee, 237 U.S. 189; 59 L.Ed. 910; Pomeroy v. Hocking Valley Ry. Co., 218 N.Y. 530; 113 N.E. 504; Tauza v. Susquehanna Coal Co., 220 N.Y. 259; 115 N.E. 914.) In conclusion, it may be stated that three conditions are necessary to give a court jurisdiction in personam over a corporation.

1. That it was carrying on its business in the state where served.

2. That the business was transacted by an agent or officer appointed by the corporation.

3. A local statute making such corporation amenable to suit there as a condition of doing business in the state.

Section 4410 C. S. 1910 is clear in its terms, but even in the absence of such a statute an action based on a judgment such as plaintiff has, requires a showing of authority for its rendition in New York. Evidence with reference to the identity of the treasurer of defendant corporation was properly received.

BEARD, CHIEF JUSTICE. POTTER, J., and BLYDENBURGH, J., concur.

OPINION

BEARD, CHIEF JUSTICE.

This suit was brought in the district court of Fremont county by the plaintiff in error against the defendants in error upon an alleged judgment of the supreme court of New York county, state of New York, in favor of William R. Eidson and against Wyopo Company; said judgment having been assigned to the plaintiff. The cause was tried to the court without a jury. The court found generally in favor of defendant, Billow, as receiver (he being the only defendant appearing and pleading) and against the plaintiff, and rendered judgment accordingly. Plaintiff brings the case to this court by proceedings in error.

The plaintiff in his petition alleged that Wyopo Company is corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Maine; alleged the rendition of the judgment in the New York court in favor of Eidson and against the Wyopo company for $ 13,125.08, and the assignment of the judgment to plaintiff; that the New York court was a court of general jurisdiction and had jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action and of the person of the Wyopo Company, and that the judgment was wholly unpaid.

Defendant, Billow, in his answer denied that Eidson had obtained judgment against the Wyopo Company as alleged; denied that the New York court had jurisdiction of the subject matter of the causes of action in favor of Eidson and against said Wyopo Company, or of the person of said Company. Alleged that the Wyopo Company, defendant in this action, is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Maine, and authorized to carry on business in the state of Wyoming. That it has never been incorporated under the laws of the state of Wyoming. That the corporation named and described in the New York action and judgment was a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Wyoming. That defendant in this action, Wyopo Company, had never been incorporated in the state of New York, had never been authorized to do business therein, never maintained an office or did business therein and never appointed an agent therein upon whom service of process could be made, and that any attempted service upon any person in said state on behalf of said corporation was a nullity. That no appearance was ever made, nor was any answer or other pleading interposed in said attempted action in the New York court by the defendant named and described in the summons and complaint, or by the Wyopo Company named and described in the petition herein; and that judgment was entered as upon default of defendant. That the plaintiff in said action, William R. Eidson, was at the time of the attempted commencement of said action a nonresident of the State of New York.

For reply plaintiff denied that the...