White River Lumber Co. v. Southwestern Imp. Ass'n.

• Decision Date: 26 March 1892
• Citation: 18 S.W. 1055
• Parties: WHITE RIVER LUMBER CO. v. SOUTHWESTERN IMP. ASS'N.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

18 S.W. 1055

WHITE RIVER LUMBER CO. v. SOUTHWESTERN IMP. ASS'N.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

March 26, 1892.

Appeal from circuit court, Monroe county; MATTHEW T. SANDERS, Judge.

Action by the Southwestern Improvement Association against the White River Lumber Company for $300, being six years' rent for certain land. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.

The legislature of this state on April 4, 1887, passed the following act: "Be it enacted by the general assembly of the state of Arkansas: Section 1. Before any foreign corporation shall begin to carry on business in this state it shall, by its certificate under the hand of the president and seal of such company, filed in the office of the secretary of state, designate an agent, who shall be a citizen of this state, upon whom service, summons, and other process may be made. Such certificate shall also state the principal place of business of such corporations in this state. Service upon such agent shall be sufficient to give jurisdiction over such corporation to any of the courts of this state. Sec. 2. If any such foreign corporation shall fail to comply with the provisions of the foregoing section, all its contracts with citizens of this state shall be void as to the corporation, and no court of this state shall enforce the same in favor of the corporation. Sec. 3. Any foreign corporation that has heretofore engaged in business or made contracts in this state may, within ninety days from the passage of this act, file such certificate with the secretary of state, and thereon all their contracts made before this act goes into effect are hereby declared as valid as if said certificate had been filed before they began business in this state. Sec. 4. This act shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage." Approved April 4, 1887.

Sanders & Watkins, for appellant. H. A. Parker, for appellee.

HEMINGWAY, J.

The only defense to the action in this case was that the contract sued upon was made by a foreign corporation, which had not complied with the constitution and statutes prescribing the terms on which such corporations may do business in the state. It appeared by the complaint that the plaintiff was a foreign corporation; and the defendant offered to prove that it had done business in the state, and had not complied with the law relating thereto, but the court excluded the evidence. The defendant asked that the court instruct the jury, in substance, that the plaintiff could not recover unless it had complied with the law, but the court refused the instruction. The...