State ex rel. Collins v. Crescent Cotton Oil Co.

• Citation: 116 Miss. 398,77 So. 185
• Decision Date: 14 January 1918
• Docket Number: 19481
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
• Parties: STATE EX REL. COLLINS ATTORNEY GENERAL, v. CRESENT COTTON OIL CO

77 So. 185

116 Miss. 398

STATE EX REL. COLLINS ATTORNEY GENERAL, v. CRESENT COTTON OIL CO

No. 19481

Supreme Court of Mississippi

January 14, 1918

APPEAL from the chancery court of Sunflower county, HON. E. N THOMAS, Chancellor.

Proceedings by the state, on relation of Ross A. Collins, Attorney General, against the Crescent Cotton Oil Company. Relief denied and relator appeals.

The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.

Reversed and remanded.

Geo. H Ethridge, assistant attorney-general, for the state.

Chapter 162, of the Laws of 1914, was enacted as an aid to the enforcement of the anti-trust laws of this state and for the purpose of cutting off some of the effective weapons for destroying competition.

The Law of 1914, is sustainable under either of two heads, both firmly grounded in the police power of the state. First, the power of the state to limit, restrict, regulate and confer power upon corporations. Second, the ginning business is a public business or a business affected with the public use.

It is fundamental and elementary law that corporations have no powers except such as are conferred by law; being wholly creatures of the statute, they can only exercise such powers as may be expressly conferred or such as are necessarily implied from those expressly conferred.

The rule as stated in Clark on Corporations (Horn Book Series) page 112, is as follows: "A corporation has such powers and such powers only, as are conferred upon it by its charter. Powers may be conferred upon a corporation. (A) expressly; (B) impliedly, because they are incidental to corporate existence. Impliedly, because they are necessary or proper in order to exercise the powers expressly conferred." Downing v. Road Co., 40 N.H. 230; 1 Cumming Cas. Pri. Corp. 148; Thomas v. Railroad Co., 101 U.S. 71, 25 L.Ed. 950; Ryne v. Mfg. Co., 65 Conn. 336, 28 L. R. A. 304; State v. Lincoln Trust Co., 144 Mo. 528; Franklin Nat'l Bank v Whitehead, 149 Ind. 560, 39 L. R. A. 724, 67 Am. St Rep. 303; Best Brewing Co. v. Klassen, 185 37, 57 N.E. 20; 50 L. R. A. 765; 76 Am. St. Rep. 26; Bakers Union of the World v. Crawford, 67 Kan. 449, 73 P. 79; 100 Am. St. Rep. 465; Cumberland Tel. & Tel. Co. v. City of Evansville (C. C.), 127 Ed. 187; South Yorkshire Ry. Co. v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 9 Exch. 84.

A corporation being created by law primarily for the public welfare and having only such powers as may be expressly conferred on it or such as necessarily result as an implied incident to an express power, it follows that a corporation is not entitled to all the rights as a citizen. It is not a citizen of the state in the meaning that that term is used in the constitution guaranteeing the citizens of the state where it resides. Ducat v. Chicago, 10 Wall. (U.S.) 14, 19 L.Ed. 972; Pembina, etc., Co. v. Penn, 125 U.S. 181, 31 L.Ed. 650; Walters, etc., Oil Co. v. Texas, 177 U.S. 45, 54 L.Ed. 657; Silver etc., v. Walsh, 226 U.S. 112, 57 L.Ed. 146.

Right to exclude or to impose conditions. A. corporation created by one state or by a foreign government can exercise none of the functions or privileges conferred by its charter in any other state or country, except by the consent of the latter. Any other state or country than that of its creation may exclude it altogether if it sees fit, or it may impose such terms as it chooses as a condition of allowing it to do business." Clark on Corporations, page 604. Citing, Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. (U.S.) 168, 19 L.Ed. 357; Liverpool Ins. Co. v. Oliver, 10 Wall, 566, 19 L.Ed. 1029; Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 13 Pet. 519, 10 L.Ed. 274; New York L. E. & W. R. Co. v. Conn., 129 Pa. 463, 18 A. 312, 15 Am. St. Rep. 724; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Burdett, 112 Ins. 204, 13 N.E. 705; Goldsmith v. Insurance Co., 62 Ga. 379; People v. Fire Assn. of Philadelphia, 92 N.Y. 331, 41 Am. St. Rep. 380; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Wench, 29 Kan. 672; State v. Phoenix Fire Ins. Co., 92 Tenn. 420, 21 S.W. 893; Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Raymond, 70 Mich. 485, 38 N.W. 474; Hooper v. California, 155 U.S. 648, 15 S.Ct. 207, 39 L.Ed. 297; Orient Ins. Co. v. Daggs, 19 S.Ct. 518, 44 L.Ed. 657; Woodson v. State, 69 Ark. 521, 65 S.W. 465; Com v. Read Phostrate Co., 113 Ky. 32, 67 S.W. 45; Attorney-General v. Electric Storage B. Co., 188 Mass. 239, 74 N.E. 467; State v. Virginia-Carolina C. Co., 71 S.C. 544, 51 S.E. 455.

Foreign corporations are permitted to do business in this state by virtue of sections 914 and 915 of the Code of 1906, the latter section being amended in the Laws of 1916, but it is provided in the concluding clause of section 914. "But such foreign corporations shall not do or commit any act in this state contrary to the laws or policy thereof, and shall not be allowed to recover on any contract made in violation of law or public policy." R. R. Co. v. Memphis, 4 Cold. 406; Anderson v. Turberville, 6 Cold. 61; Memphis v. Water Co., 5 Heis. 530.

As to power to regulate and control the business of corporations affected by public use. The leading case upon this subject is Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113, to 154, 24 L.Ed. 77 to 94; Thorne v. R. R. Co., 27 Vt. 143. First, "every statute is presumed constitutional and will not be invalidated unless in a clear case," citing Chicago etc., Ry. v. Dey. 35 F. 866, 1 L. R. A .744, and note; Laurel Fork R. R. v. Transportation Co., 25 W.Va. 325, and N. Swan v. United States, 3 Wyo. 155, 9 P. 933; Leep v. Railway Co., 85 Ark. 415, 41 Am. St. Rep. 113, 25 S.W. 77, 23 L. R. A. 268; People v. Thompson, 115 Ill. 465, 40 N.E. 310. Second, "while government may not interfere with exclusively private contracts, it may require each citizen to so conduct himself and use his property as not to injure others. This is the very essence of government," citing Smith v. Lake Shore, etc., Ry., 114 Mich. 489, 72 N.W. 338. Dissenting opinion in Territory v. Ah Lim, 1 Wash. 172, 24 P. 592, 9 L. R. A. 399. Majority upholding law penalizing opium smoking; Smith v. Lake Shore, etc., Ry., 111 Mich. 489, 72 N.W. 338. Majority upholding law requiring sale of thousand-mile tickets at fixed rate. Nash v. Page, 80 Ky. 547, 44 Am. St. Rep. 495; Budd v. N. Y., 143 U.S. 147, 36 L.Ed. 256; Louisville Tobacco Co. v. Warehouse Co., 48 S.W. 432, 59 S.W. 1071; Rushville v. Rushville Co., 132 Ind. 484, 15 L. R. A. 325; Hackett v. State, 105 Ind. 258, 55 Am. St. Rep. 206; State v. Chicago, etc., R. R. Co., 38 Minn. 281, 37 N.W. 782; State v. St. L., 145 Mo. 574, 42 L. R. A. 122, 25 Am. St. 889, and note. Note to 26 Am. St. Rep. 289 to 292; Note to Nash v. Page, 44 Am. St. 490; Leep v. Ry. Co., 58 Ark. 416, 44 Am. St. 115, 23 L. R. A. 268; Sinking Fund Cases, 99 U.S. 747, 25 L.Ed. 511; State v. Republican, etc., R. R. Co., 17 Neb. 647, 52 Am. St. 424; Ruggles v. Illinois, 108 U.S. 531, 27 L.Ed. 815; Ryan v. Louisville Terminal Co., 102 Tenn. 119, 45 L. R. A. 307 (applying the principal to the Terminal Company), Burlington v. Beasley, 94 U.S. 314, 24 L.Ed. 164 (applying the principal to grist mills); State v. Edwards, 86 Me. 105, 41 Am. St. 530; Civil Right Case, 109 U.S. 42, 27 L.Ed. 850; People v. King, 110 N.Y. 428, 6 Am. St. Rep. 396, 1 L. R. A. 295; Stock Exchange v. Board of Trade, 127 Ill. 158, 11 Am. St. 107, 2 L. R. A. 413 (applying the principle to stock yards); Spring Valley Water Co. v. Scholatter, 110 U.S. 354, 28 L.Ed. 176; Griffin v. Golasboro, etc., Co., 122 N.C. 207, 41 L. R. A. 241; Danville v. Danville Water Co., 178 Ill. 300, 69 Am. St. 309; White v. Canal Co., 22 Colo. 198, 31 L. R. A. 1; Brass v. N. O., 153 U.S. 399, 38 L.Ed. 760; Noble State Bank v. Haskell, et al, 219 U.S. 104, 55 L.Ed. 112.

It is established by a series of cases that an ulterior public advantage may justify a comparatively insignificant taking of private property for what, in its immediate purpose is a private use. Clark v. Nash, 198 U.S. 361, 49 L.Ed. 1085; 25 S.Ct. 676; 4 A. & E. Ann. Cas. 1171; Stickley v. Highland Boy Gold Min. Mill. Co., 200 U.S. 527, 50 L.Ed. 581, 583, 26 S.Ct. Rep. 301, 4 A. & E. Cas. 1174; Offeld v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 203 U.S. 372, 51 L.Ed. 231, 27 S.Ct. 72; Bacon v. Walker, 204 U.S. 311, 51 L.Ed. 499, 501, 27 S.Ct. 289; Ohio Oil Co. v. Indiana, 177 U.S. 190, 44 L.Ed. 729, 20 S.Ct. 576, 20 Mor. Min. Rep. 576.

It may be said in a general way that the police power extends to all the great public needs. Camfield v. United States, 167 U.S. 518, 42 L.Ed. 260 17 S.Ct. 864; Charlotte C. &amp A. R. Co. v. Gibbes, 142 U.S. 386, 35 L.Ed. 1051, 12 S.Ct. 255; Gundling v. Chicago, 177 U.S. 183, 188, 44 L.Ed. 725, 728, 20 S.Ct. 633. So far is that from being the case that the device is a familiar one. It was adopted by some states the better part of a century ago, and seems never to have been questioned until now. Dandy Bank v. State Treasurer, 39 Vt. 92; People v. Walker, 17 N.Y. 502; Recent cases going not less far are Lemieux, v. Young, 211 U.S. 489, 53 L. Ed., 295, 29 Sup. 174; Kidd D. & P. Co. v. Musselman Gro. Co., 217 U.S. 461, 54 L.Ed. 839, 30 Sup, Ct. Rep. 606; State ex rel. Goodsill v. Woodmansee, 1 N.D. 246, 11 L. R. A. 420, 46 N.W. 970; Brady v. Mattern, 125 Iowa 159, 106 Am. St. Rep. 219, 100 N.W. 358; Weed v. Bergh, 141 Wis. 169, 25 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1217, 124 N.W. 664; Com. v. Vrooman, 164 Pa. 306, 25 L. R. A. 250, 44 Am. St. Rep. 603, 30 A. 217; Myers v. Irwin, 2 Serg. & R. 368; Myers v. Manhattan Bank, 10 Ohio 283; Attorney-General v. Utica Ins. Co., 2 Johns. Ch. 377; Shallenberger v. First State Bank, 219 U.S. 114, 55 L.Ed. 117; Fund Cases 99 U.S. 718, 25 L.Ed. 501; Powell v. Pennsylvania, 127 U.S. 678, 32 L. Ed, 253, 8 S.Ct. 882, 1257; Gundling v. Chicago, 177 U.S. 183, 44 L.Ed. 725, 20 S.Ct. 633; Barbier v. Conolly, 113 U.S. 27, 28 L.Ed. 923, 5 S.Ct. 357; Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U.S. 1, 32 L.Ed. 346; 2 Inters. Com. Rep. 232,...