McKee v. Stewart Land & Livestock Co.
| Decision Date | 14 July 1925 |
| Docket Number | Civil 2367 |
| Parties | CHARLES McKEE, State Bank Commissioner for the Bank of Foreman (Arkansas), a Corporation, by ROBERT S. MORRIS, Deputy Bank Commissioner, Appellant, v. STEWART LAND AND LIVESTOCK COMPANY, a Corporation, and ELIZABETH C. WILLS, Appellees |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Pinal. Stephen H. Abbey, Judge. Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
Mr Frank H. Hereford, for Appellant.
Mr Francis M. Hartman, for Appellees.
December 31st, 1919, Stewart Land & Live Stock Company, a corporation made, executed, and delivered to Thomas N. Wills its three promissory notes secured by a mortgage. One of these notes, amounting to nine thousand dollars ($9,000), and due January 1, 1922, was assigned by Wills to the Bank of Foreman, a corporation organized and doing business in the state of Arkansas. Thereafter said bank became insolvent, and under the laws of Arkansas, Charles McKee, the state bank commissioner of Arkansas, took charge and possesion of all the assets of the defunct bank, including the note and mortgage referred to, the same being due. Suit was brought thereon in the superior court of Pinal county against the Stewart Land & Live Stock Company and Elizabeth C. Wills; the complaint alleging that she claimed some interest in the property covered by the mortgage. The company failed to answer, and its default was duly entered, but defendant Wills demurred to the complaint on the following grounds:
"That plaintiff's complaint shows on its face that plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue or maintain this action in the state of Arizona or in any other state."
The real issue raised, and the one upon which this appeal is decided, is that the Bank of Foreman, an Arkansas corporation, was the real plaintiff and party in interest, and that, since it had not complied with the provisions of paragraph 2226, 2228, and 2230, R.S.A. 1913 (Civ. Code), it was not qualified to maintain this action. Assuming, for the purpose of the argument, that the Bank of Foreman is the real party plaintiff, the only act which it is claimed it has done within the state of Arizona was to bring this suit. The contention of defendant Wills, then, is that a foreign corporation may not even maintain a suit within the state of Arizona without complying with the provisions of the statute cited.
We have held in four different cases "that to come within the statute a corporation must be engaged in an enterprise of some permanence and durability and must transact within the state some substantial part of its ordinary business, and not merely a single act." Monaghan and Murphy Bank v. Davis et al., 27 Ariz. 532, 234 P. 818; Nicolai v. Sugarman Iron & Metal Co., 23 Ariz. 230, 202 P. 1075; Martin v. Bankers' Trust Co., 18 Ariz. 55, Ann. Cas. 1918E, 1240, 156 P. 87; Babbitt v. Field, 6 Ariz. 6, 52 P. 775.
Defendant however, claims that, while...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walter E. Heller & Co. of Cal. v. Stephens
...not authorized to do business in Arizona are void. Ranch House Supply Corp. v. Van Slyke, supra; McKee v. Stewart Land & Live Stock Co., 28 Ariz. 511, 238 P. 326 (1925). That the transaction here would be held to be void under § 10--482, supra, is clearly indicated by what is said by the Ar......
-
Burlington Savings Bank v. Grayson
... ... WILSON, BLAINE COUNTY NATIONAL BANK, THOS.D. PERRY, WOOD RIVER LAND COMPANY, R. B. MERRILL, Defendants, and NEIL CAMPBELL, Appellant; ... v. Hansen Livestock & F. Co., ante, p. 343, 251 ... P. 1051, wherein it was held that ... Davis, supra; Gen. Motors v. Shadyside Coal ... Co., supra; McKee v. Stewart Land & Live ... Stock Co., 28 Ariz. 511, 238 P. 326; Davis & ... ...
-
Worcester Felt Pad Corp. v. Tucson Airport Authority, 14462.
...these statutes were considered by the Arizona courts. One other case arose under the Code of 1939. McKee v. Stewart Land & Livestock Co., 1925, 28 Ariz. 511, 238 P. 326, at page 327, summarized the holdings to the date of that case, "* * * We have held in four different cases `that to come ......
-
Pepper & Tanner, Inc. v. Shamrock Broadcasting, Inc.
...mortgage on Arizona property. The Monaghan case and previous holdings were summarized by the court in McKee v. Stewart Land & Live Stock Co., 28 Ariz. 511, 238 P. 326 (1925), in the following We have held in four different cases "that to come within the statute a corporation must be engaged......