Wyoming Construction and Development Co. v. Buffalo Lumber Co.

Decision Date18 July 1917
Docket Number873
Citation25 Wyo. 158,166 P. 391
PartiesWYOMING CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CO. v. BUFFALO LUMBER CO
CourtWyoming Supreme Court

ERROR to District Court of Sheridan County; HON. V. J. TIDBALL Judge.

Action by the Wyoming Construction and Development Company against the Buffalo Lumber Company to recover upon an alleged written contract of subscription for bonds of plaintiff. The judgment was for defendant and plaintiff brings error. The material facts are stated in the opinion.

Affirmed.

H. W Nichols and W. T. Alden, for plaintiff in error.

Plaintiff was authorized to transact business in Wyoming. The burden of proof was on defendant to prove its second defense that plaintiff had not complied with the corporation laws of Wyoming. (White River L. Co. v. S.W. Imp. Asso., 55 Ark. 625, 18 S.W. 1055; Am. B. O. &c. Mach. Co. v Moore, 2 Dak. 280, 8 N.W. 131; Standard S. M. Co. v Frame, 2 Pennew, 30, 48 A. 188; Sprague v. Cutler &c. L. Co., 106 Ind. 242, 6 N.E. 335; McKinley &c. Co. v. Gordon, 113 Ia. 481, 85 N.W. 816; American Ins. Co. v. Cutler, 36 Mich. 261; Lehigh V. C. Co. v. Gilmore, 93 Minn. 432, 101 N.W. 796; American Ins. Co. v. Smith, 73 Mo. 368; Zion Co-op. Merc. Asso. v. Mayo, 22 Mont. 100, 55 P. 915; Northern Assur. Co. v. Borgelt, 93 N.W. 226; Alleghany Co. v. Allen, 69 N.J.L. 270, 55 A. 724; Charles &c. Co. v. Haas, 171 N.Y. 579, 64 N.E. 440; Fuller v. Schrenk, 58 A.D. 222, 68 N.Y.S. 781. Affirmed, 171 N.Y. 671, 64 N.E. 1126; Osborn v. Schilling, 68 Kan. 808, 74 P. 609; Coppage v. Goetz Brg. Co., 67 Kan. 851, 73 P. 908; Northup v. Wills L. Co., 65 Kan. 769, 70 P. 879.) Merely holding title to land is not doing business in the state within the meaning of the statute. (Missouri C. & M. Co. v. Ladd, 160 Mo. 435, 61 S.W. 191; Land Co. v. San Antonio T. Co., 95 Tex. 252, 66 S.W. 768; Meddis v. Kenney (Mo.), 75 S.W. 633; Goldberry v. Carter, 100 Va. 438, 41 S.E. 658.) Especially where ownership is evidenced by stock in the corporation holding the title. (Commonwealth v. N. Y. L. V. & W. R. R. Co., 132 Pa. St. 591, 609, 19 A. 291, S. C. 139 Pa. St. 457-459, 21 A. 528.) A single transaction is not doing business within the statute. (Cooper v. Ferguson, 113 U.S. 727; Gilchrist v. Helena H. S. & S. R. Co., 47 F. 593.) Such as securing subscriptions to stock of a foreign corporation. (Union Trust Co. v. Sickels, 124 A.D. 105; Payson, Assignee, v. Withers, 5 Bissell (U. S. Cir. Ct.) 269; Pavilion Co. v. Hamilton, 15 Pa. Supr. Ct. 389; Galena M. & S. Co. v. Frazier, 20 Pa. Supr. Ct. 394, 398; West v. Grosvenor, 102 A.D. 266.) The rule does not apply to interstate business. (Gould L. & C. Co. v. Teleg. Co., 17 Wyo. 507, 520; Lehigh Cement Co. v. McLean, 245 Ill. 326, 330, 92 N.E. 248; International Text Book Co. v. Pigg, 217 U.S. 91; 54 L.Ed. 678.) Nor to acts outside of its regular business. (Alpena Cement Co. v. Jenkins, 244 Ill. 354, 360, 91 N.E. 480; Ferkel v. Col. Clay Works, 192 F. 119; Construction Co. v. Winton, 208 Pa. St. 467, 57 A. 955.) Nor to interstate commerce. (International Text Book Co. v. Pigg, 217 U.S. 91, 54 L.Ed. 678; Caldwell v. North Carolina, 187 U.S. 622, 47 L.Ed. 336.) The mere employment of an agent in another state does not render the business transacted there intrastate. (In re. Monongahela Dist. Co., 186 F. 224.) Owning shares in a local corporation is not within the rule. (Shepp v. Schuylkill Valley Traction Co., 17 Montg. Co. Rep. (Pa.) 52; Commonwealth v. Standard Oil Co., 101 Pa. ___; Mannington v. H. V. Ry. Co., 183 F. 153, 156; Edmunds v. I. C. R. R. Co., 36 Nat. Corp. Rep. 50; Peterson v. C. R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 205 U.S. 564, 51 L.Ed. 851, 852; People ex rel. Kelsey, 101 A.D. 205, 206; People v. American Bell Tel. Co., 117 N.Y. 241.) Nor the purchase of negotiable securities. (Miller v. Williams, 59 P. (Supr. Ct. of Colo., Dec. 19, 1899) 740.) The question as to whether charter powers are broader than is permitted by the statutes of Wyoming cannot be raised in a collateral proceeding. (Tarbell v. Page, 24 Ill. 46; Brouwer v. Appleby, 1 Sandf. Ch. 158; Minnesota Gas Light &c. Co. v. Denslow, 46 Minn. 171; Harris v. Gateway Land Co., 128 Ala. 652, 657; Central &c. Assoc. v. Ins. Co., 70 Ala. 120; Planters &c. Co. v. Webb, 144 Ala. 666-673; American Alkali Co. v. Campbell, 113 F. 398, 405; Chubb v. Upton, 95 U.S. 665, 24 L.Ed. 523, 525; Telephone Co. v. Howell, 132 Ia. 22, 27; Fire Ins. Co. v. Jesser, 87 Mass. 446, 448; Swortwout v. Railroad Co., 24 Mich. 389; Monroe v. Railroad Co., 28 Mich. 272; Anderson v. Railroad Co., 91 Tenn. 44; Methodist Episcopal Union Church v. Pickett, 19 N.Y. 482; Hartford Deposit Co. v. Rector, 190 Ill. 380; American Trust Co. v. M. & N.W. R. R. Co., 157 Ill. 641, 652.) Defendant entered into the contract sued upon and its authority to do so is presumed. (Willow Spgs. Irr. Dist. v. Wilson, 74 Neb. 269, 104 N.W. 165; Perryman & Co. v. Farmers &c. Co., 167 Ala. 414, 52 So. 644; Burnett Cigar Co. v. Art Wall Paper Co., 164 Ala. 547, 51 So. 263; Sullivan v. Grass Val. &c. Co., 77 Cal. 418, 19 P. 757; Malone v. Crescent City &c. Co., 77 Cal. 38, 18 P. 858; Duval Investment Co. v. Stockton, 54 Fla. 296, 45 So. 497; Cawthra v. Stewart, 59 Misc. 38, 109 N.Y.S. 770; Belch v. Big Store Co., 46 Wash. 1, 89 P. 174.) The act of its president will be presumed to have been authorized. (Anderson v. So. Chi. Brg. Co., 173 Ill. 213, 50 N.E. 655; Smith v. Smith, 62 Ill. 493; Topeka P. Assoc. v. Martin, 39 Kas. 750, 18 P. 941; Kenton Ins. Co. v. Bowman, 84 Ky. 430, 1 S.W. 717; Ceeder v. H. M. Loud &c. L. Co., 86 Mich. 541, 49 N.W. 575; Sparks v. Dispatch Co., 104 Mo. 531, 15 S.W. 417; Quee Drug Co. v. Plaub, 55 A.D. 87, 67 N.Y.S. 10; Dougherty v. Hunter, 54 Pa. St. 380.) The execution of the contract was admitted and proof of the president's authority was unnecessary. (Vette v. Evans, 111 Mo.App. 588, 86 S.W. 504; Marx v. Gross (N. Y.), 9 N.Y.S. 719; Barnes v. Coos Bay Nav. Co., 41 Ore. 135, 68 P. 397.) Admissions in a special defense operate to modify a general denial and may be taken as true without further proof. (Queens Ins. Co. v. Hudnut, 8 Ind.App. 22, 35 N.E. 397; Hannen v. Pence, 40 Minn. 122, 41 N.W. 651; State v. Firemen's Fund Ins. Co., 152 Mo. 1, 52 S.W. 595; Robeman v. Gaiser, 53 Neb. 424, 73 N.W. 923; Lamberton v. Shannon, 13 Wash. 404, 43 P. 336; Mitchell v. Ripley, 5 Kan.App. 818, 49 P. 153.) Inconsistent defenses are permissible. (31 Cyc. 150; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Carnahan, 63 O. St. 258, 58 N.E. 805; Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. v. Warren, 3 Wyo. 136.) The contract was not ultra vires. (29 Am. & Eng. Enc. of Law, 2nd Ed. 46; Thomas v. West Jersey Ry. Co., 101 U.S. 71; Pittsburg &c. R. Co. v. Keokuk &c. Bridge Co., 131 U.S. 385; Davis v. Old Colony R. Co., 131 Mass. 258; Steinway v. Steinway, 17 Misc. (N. Y.) 47; Best Brewing Co. v. Klassen, 185 Ill. 37; State v. Lincoln Trust Co., 144 Mo. 562; Holmes v. Willard, 125 N.Y. 75; 29 Am. & Eng. Enc. of Law, 47.) Defendant had implied power to do acts necessary or incidental to the general object and purpose of its organization. (7 Am. & Eng. Enc. of Law, 2nd Ed. 807; Richelieu Hotel Co. v. International Military Encampment Co., 140 Ill. 248; B. S. Green Co. v. Glodgett, 159 Ill. 169; Steinway v. Steinway, 17 Misc. (N. Y. ) 43; Vandell v. South San Francisco Dock Co., 40 Cal. 83; McGeorge v. Big Stone Gap Imp. Co., 57 F. 262; Whetstone v. Ottawa University, 13 Kas. 320; Sherman Center Town Co. v. Russell, 46 Kas. 382; Fort Worth City Co. v. Smith Bridge Co., 151 U.S. 294; Louisville &c. R. Co. v. Literary Society of St. Rose, 91 Ky. 395.) Ultra vires can be raised only by special plea. (Citizens State Bank v. Pence, 59 Neb. 579, 81 N.W. 623; 5 Standard Ency. of Proc., 658; Bell v. Mendenhall, 71 Minn. 331, 73 N.W. 1086; Chi. &c. Tool Co. v. Munsell, 107 Ill.App. 344; Iowa Business Men's &c. Assoc. v. Berlau, 125 Ia. 22, 98 N.W. 766; German Savings Inst. v. Jacoby, 97 Mo. 617, 11 S.W. 256; Williams v. Verity, 98 Mo.App. 654, 73 S.W. 732; Bacon v. Montauk Brewery Co., 130 A.D. 937, 115 N.Y.S. 617; Stanton v. Erie R. R. Co., 131 A.D. 879, 116 N.Y.S. 375; Farmers &c. Bank v. Detroit & M. R. Co., 17 Wis. 372.) The court erred in admitting evidence on improper cross-examinaton and in excluding material evidence offered by plaintiff. The Gould case, 17 Wyo. 519, is not in point on the facts. Statutes of this class merely suspend the remedy on the contract, until there is a compliance with the statute. (Wood Mowing Mach. Co. v. Caldwell, 54 Ind. 270; Nat'l M. F. I. Co. v. Pursell, 10 Allen, 231; Carson-Rand Co. v. Stern, 129 Mo. 381; Neuchated Asphalt Co. v. New York, 155 N.Y. 373; Sullivan v. Beck, 79 F. 200; Goddard v. Crefield Mills, 75 F. 818.) The execution of the contract was admitted in the third defense and further proof was unnecessary. (Barnes v. The Coos Nav. Co., 41 Ore. 135, 68 P. 397; Ry. Co. v. Warren, 3 Wyo. 136, 137.) The authorities are correlated in a note to Bank v. Jones & Carter, 48 L. R. A. 177. Ultra vires not having been pleaded was waived. (Hawkes v. Eastern Counties R. Co., 1 DeG. M. & G. 760; 29 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law (2nd Ed.) 50.) Defense of ultra vires is not available under general denial. (Citizens State Bank v. Pence, 59 Neb. 579, 81 N.W. 623, 624; Assn. v. Berlau, 125 Ia. 22, 98 N.W. 766.)

Hayden M. White and Metz & Sackett, for defendants in error.

Plaintiff was unlawfully doing business in the state on the date of the contract. (Gould Co. v. Tel. Co., 17 Wyo. 519, 101 P. 931; Art. X, Sec. 5, Const.) Contracts made by foreign corporations without complying with the law are void especially where no other penalty is imposed. (Dudley v. Collier, 87 Ala. 433; In re. Comstock, 3 Sawy. (U.S.) 218; Cincinnati Mut. Health Assur. Co. v. Rosenthal, 55 Ill. 92; British Columbia Bank v. Page, 6 Ore. 431; Hatcheny v. Leary, 12...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Van Tassel Real Estate & Livestock Co. v. City of Cheyenne
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • February 18, 1936
    ... ... 1912 Supreme Court of Wyoming February 18, 1936 ... APPEAL ... from the ... 197; ... Wyoming Construction Company v. Lumber Company, 25 ... Wyo. 158. The city ... ...
  • First National Bank v. Ford
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • July 17, 1923
    ... ... FORD No. 1057 Supreme Court of Wyoming July 17, 1923 ... APPEAL ... from the District ... defenses, both deny and avoid. ( Wyo. Co. v. Lumber ... Co., 25 Wyo. 158.) The burden of proof was at all ... ...
  • Powe v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • September 19, 1930
    ... ... I feel that a ... construction should be given, broad and comprehensive, to ... carry out ...          In ... Wyoming Co. v. Buffalo Co., 25 Wyo. 158, 166 P. 391, ... 392, it ... ...
  • Johnson v. Sellers
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • December 5, 1938
    ...seeks a decree clearing title. Section 89-601, R. S. does not state that utterly inconsistent causes of action may be united. Wyoming Co. v. Buffalo, 25 Wyo. 158. petition showing on its face causes of action improperly joined is subject to demurrer. An exhaustive discussion of the principl......
  • 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