Terral v. Burke Const Co, 93

Decision Date17 January 1922
Docket NumberNo. 93,93
Citation257 U.S. 529,21 A. L. R. 186,42 S.Ct. 188,66 L.Ed. 352
PartiesTERRAL, Secretary of State of Arkansas, v. BURKE CONST. CO. Argued for Appellee, Court Declining to Hear Further Argument
CourtU.S. Supreme Court
to Hear Further Argument Jan. 17, 1922

Messrs. J. S. Utley, Atty. Gen., and Frank S. Quinn, of Texarkana, for appellant.

Messrs. Wm. Marshall Bullitt, of Louisville, Ky., and James B. McDonough, of Ft. Smith, Ark., for appellee.

Mr. Chief Justice TAFT delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is an appeal from the District Court under section 238 of the Judicial Code (Comp. St. § 1215) in a case in which the law of a state is claimed to be in contravention of the Constitution of the United States.

The Burke Construction Company, a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Missouri, filed its bill against Terral, Secretary of State of Arkansas, averring that it has been licensed to do business in the state of Arkansas under an act of the Arkansas Legislature approved May 13, 1907 (Laws 1907, p. 744); that it was organized for the purpose of doing construction work, and carrying on interstate commerce, and was actually so engaged in Arkansas; that the right to do business in the state was a valuable privilege, and the revocation of the license would greatly injure it; that it had brought an original suit in the federal court of Arkansas and had removed a suit brought against it to the same federal court; that the Secretary of State was about to revoke the license because of such suit and such removal, acting under the requirement of section 1 of the act of the Legislature of Arkansas of May 13, 1907, reading as follows:

'If any company shall, without the consent of the other party to any suit or proceeding brought by or against it in any court of this state, remove said suit or proceeding to any federal court, or shall institute any suit or proceeding against any citizen of this state in any federal court, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to forthwith revoke all authority to such company and its agents to do business in this state, and to publish such revocation in some newspaper of general circulation published in this state; and if such corporation shall thereafter continue to do business in this state, it shall be subject to the penalty of this act for each day it shall continue to do business in this state after such revocation.'

The penalty fixed is not less than $1,000 a The Construction Company avers that this act is in contravention of section 2, article 3, i. e., the judiciary article of the federal Constitution, and of section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The defendant filed an answer in which there were many denials. One was that the complainant was engaged in interstate commerce. The answer did not deny, however, that the complainant was a foreign corporation, that it had been duly granted a license to do business in the state of Arkansas, that its right to do business in the state thus licensed was a valuable right, that the complainant had brought suit in the federal District Court and removed another case to that court, that such suit and removal were violations of the license granted by the state of Arkansas, or that the defendant intended to cancel the plaintiff's license. The case was heard on bill and answer, and is to be considered on the averments of the bill which are not denied by the answer. Iowa v. Illinois, 147 U. S. 1, 7, 13 Sup. Ct. 239, 37 L. Ed. 55.

The sole question presented on the record is whether a state law is unconstitutional which revokes a license to a foreign corporation to do business within the state because while doing only a domestic business in the state, it resorts to the federal court sitting in the state.

The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
150 cases
  • Smetal Corp. v. West Lake Inv. Co.
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • April 16, 1936
    ... ... law, U.S.Const.Amend. art. 14, § 1, was intended to secure ... the individual from the ... Power Mfg. Co. v. Saunders, supra; Terral v. Burke ... Construction Co., 257 U.S. 529, 42 S.Ct. 188, 66 L.Ed ... ...
  • Louis Liggett Co v. Lee 12 8212 13, 1933
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • March 13, 1933
    ...U.S. 1, 30 S.Ct. 190, 54 L.Ed. 355; Looney v. Crane Co., 245 U.S. 178, 38 S.Ct. 85, 62 L.Ed. 230; Terral v. Burke Construction Co., 257 U.S. 529, 42 S.Ct. 188, 66 L.Ed. 352, 21 A.L.R. 186, have no application to the situation here Whether the citizens of Florida are wise in seeking to disco......
  • Burnet v. Coronado Oil Gas Co
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • April 11, 1932
    ...Pennsylvania Gas Co. v. Public Service Commission, 252 U. S. 23, 40 S. Ct. 279, 64 L. Ed. 434; Terral v. Burke Construction Co., 257 U. S. 529, 533, 42 S. Ct. 188, 66 L. Ed. 352, 21 A. L. R. 186, overruling Doyle v. Continental Insurance Co., 94 U. S. 535, 24 L. Ed. 148, and Security Mutual......
  • Watson v. Employers Liability Assurance Corporation
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • December 6, 1954
    ...to surrender constitutional rights as a condition of being permitted to do business in the state. See Terral v. Burke Construction Co., 257 U.S. 529, 42 S.Ct. 188, 66 L.Ed. 352. That principle is inapplicable to this case because, as we have just decided, Louisiana has a constitutional righ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 in historical context: a preliminary view.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 156 No. 6, June 2008
    • June 1, 2008
    ...be out of business in that state." Id. at 202. These statutes ceased to be enforceable as a result of Tectal v. Burke Construction Co., 257 U.S. 529 (1922), in which the Court affirmed an injunction barring the Arkansas Secretary of State from revoking a corporation's license to do business......
  • The South Counterattacks: the Anti-Naacp Laws
    • United States
    • Political Research Quarterly No. 12-2, June 1959
    • June 1, 1959
    ...rare privileges and immunities of national citizenship. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 79 (1873); Terral v. Burke Construction Co., 257 U.S. 529 against any group, to enjoin temporarily further NAACP operations. Afteran involved court fight, which seems to have left the Negroes, the st......
  • FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION: CAMPUS RELIGIOUS GROUPS.
    • United States
    • Washington University Law Review Vol. 97 No. 6, August 2020
    • August 1, 2020
    ...(31.) Id. (citing Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169, 180-184 (1972)). (32.) 357 U.S. 513, 518 (1958). (33.) Terral v. Burke Constr. Co., 257 U.S. 529 (1922); Frost & Frost Trucking Co. v. R.R. Comm'n of Cal., 271 U.S. 583 (1926); Speiser, 357 U.S. 513; Sherbert v. Vemer, 374 U.S. 398 (1963);......

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