R. C. Allen Business Machines, Inc. v. Acres

Decision Date29 July 1971
Docket Number6146,Nos. 6145,s. 6145
Citation111 N.H. 269,281 A.2d 162
PartiesR. C. ALLEN BUSINESS MACHINES, INC. v. Lynn E. ACRES et al., d/b/a Concord Typewriter Service. HASKELL, INC. v. Lynn E. ACRES et al., d/b/a Concord Typewriter Service. PURETEC, INC. v. Lynn E. ACRES et al., d/b/a Concord Typewriter Service. , and 6147.
CourtNew Hampshire Supreme Court

Thomas N. Tarrant, Manchester, and Paul A. Rinden, Concord, for plaintiffs.

Hall, Morse, Gallagher & Anderson and F. Graham McSwiney, Concord, for defendants.

LAMPRON, Justice.

Each case involves an action by a foreign corporation to recover for goods sold and delivered to the defendants at their place of business in this State. The defendants appeared specially and filed motions to dismiss on the ground that the plaintiffs had not been licensed to do business in New Hampshire in accordance with the requirements of RSA ch. 300 and introduced certificates of the Secretary of State to that effect.

After hearings, the Court (Grant, J.) granted the motions to dismiss. Plaintiff Puretec, after excepting to the granting of the motion to dismiss, filed a motion for summary judgment (RSA 491:8-a) and an accompanying affidavit. This motion was denied. Plaintiffs Allen and Haskell filed similar motions for summary judgment with supporting affidavits before the motions to dismiss their actions were granted. The court took no action on their motions for summary judgment. All questions of law raised were reserved and transferred.

RSA 300:3 (supp.), 4 require foreign corporations doing business within the State of New Hampshire to register and obtain from the Secretary of State a certificate of authority. RSA 300:8 provides that if such a corporation fails to comply with these requirements 'no action shall be maintained or recovery had in any of the courts of this state by any such foreign corporation so long as it fails to comply with the requirements of this chapter.' It is well established law that this denial of access to our courts applies only to actions by such corporations which arise out of intrastate transactions which fall within the purview of RSA ch. 300. Myers Company v. Piche, 109 N.H. 357, 252 A.2d 427 (1969). In other words, the provisions of RSA 300:8 do not apply to actions by foreign corporations arising out of transactions in interstate commerce. Pennsylvania Rubber Co. v. Brown, 83 N.H. 336, 337, 143 A. 703 (1928); Furst v. Brewster, 282 U.S. 493, 51 S.Ct. 295, 75 L.Ed. 478 (1931); 36 Am.Jur.2d Foreign Corporations s. 259 (1968); see Eli Lilly and Company v. Sav-On-Drugs, Inc., 366 U.S. 276, 81 S.Ct. 1316, 6 L.Ed.2d 288 (1961).

The alleged incapacity of these plaintiffs to sue, is not a defense to the merit of their claims, but rather, a matter in abatement of their present actions until they comply with RSA ch. 300 if the activities on which their claims are based fall within the intent of that chapter. Williams v. Walker, 95 N.H. 231, 236, 61 A.2d 522, 525 (1948); 1 Am.Jur.2d Abatement, Survival and Revival s. 2 (1962); 20 C.J.S. Corporations § 1910 (1940); 36 Am.Jur.2d Foreign Corporations ss. 588, 591 (1968); James, Civil Procedure s. 9.9 (1965). Such incapacity, unless it appears on the face of the declaration, which it does not in these cases, is an affirmative defense which must be pleaded and proved by the defendant. Automotriz Del Golfo De Cal. v. Resnick, 47 Cal.2d 792, 306 P.2d 1 (1957); Burr v. Renewal Guarantee Corp., 105 Ariz. 549, 551, 468 P.2d 576, 578 (1970); 20 C.J.S. Corporations § 1910 (1940); 18 Fletcher Cyc. Corp. (perm. ed.) s. 8621 (1969); see Dairy Equipment Co. v. Boehme, 92 Idaho 301, 442 P.2d 437, 439, 440 (1968); Walter E. Heller & Company v. Stephens, 79 N.M. 74, 78, 439 P.2d 723, 727 (1968). There is no prsumption that a foreign corporation doing business in a state is doing so contrary to statutes such as RSA ch. 300 and it need not plead compliance therewith when bringing suit. 36 Am.Jur.2d Foreign Corporations s. 593 (1968); 18 Fletcher Cyc. Corp. (perm. ed.) s. 8630 (1969).

In order to maintain their affirmative defense, the defendants must allege and prove that the transaction out of which the action arose was an intrastate transaction which constitutes doing business...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Guyette v. C & K Development Co.
    • United States
    • New Hampshire Supreme Court
    • October 14, 1982
    ...it has failed to register is an affirmative defense which must be pleaded and proved by the defendant. R.C. Allen Bus. Mach., Inc. v. Acres, 111 N.H. 269, 271, 281 A.2d 162, 164 (1971). To establish the defense, the defendant must prove three factors. First, it must prove that the transacti......
  • Vanco v. Sportsmax, Inc.
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • April 21, 1983
    ...from inventory or warehouses within Indiana (see C.H. Stuart, Inc. v. Bennett (Okl.1980) 617 P.2d 879; R.C. Allen Business Machines, Inc. v. Acres (N.H.1971) 111 N.H. 269, 281 A.2d 162), the affidavits of Corporations were sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding engag......
  • Peerless Corp. v. Chin
    • United States
    • New Hampshire Supreme Court
    • January 31, 1972
    ...transactions in interstate commerce. See Pennsylvania, etc., Co. v. Brown, 83 N.H. 336, 143 A. 703 (1928); R. C. Allen Bus. Mach., Inc. v. Acres, 111 N.H. --, 281 A.2d 162 (1971). The sole questions presented are whether the plaintiff may maintain its second action to recover upon a cause w......
  • McLaughlin v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 6114
    • United States
    • New Hampshire Supreme Court
    • July 29, 1971
    ... ... Arthur Lessard & Sons, Inc., 110 N.H. 36, 260 A.2d 111 (1969)) included the ... ...
  • 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