Cooper Mfg. Co. v. Ferguson , 113 U.S. 727 ( 1885 )


Menu:
  • 113 U.S. 727 (1885)

    COOPER MANUFACTURING COMPANY
    v.
    FERGUSON & Another.

    Supreme Court of United States.

    Argued October 23, 1884.
    Decided March 16, 1885.
    IN ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO.

    *729 Mr. Walter H. Smith, October 23, 1884, argued for plaintiff in error.

    Mr. Thomas M. Robinson for defendants in error.

    *732 MR. JUSTICE WOODS delivered the opinion of the court. He recited the facts as above stated, and continued:

    The right of the people of a State to prescribe generally by its constitution and laws the terms upon which a foreign corporation shall be allowed to carry on its business in the State, has been settled by this court. Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 13 Pet. 519; Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168; Ducat v. Chicago, 10 Wall. 410. The plaintiff in error does not deny this right, but insists that, upon a proper construction of § 10 of article 15 of the Constitution of Colorado, and of § 23 of the act of 1877, its *733 contract with the defendants was valid, and that its suit should have been maintained.

    As the clause in the Constitution and the act of the legislature relate to the same subject, like statutes in pari materia, they are to be construed together. Eskridge v. The State, 25 Ala. 30.

    The act was passed by the first legislature that assembled after the adoption of the Constitution, and has been allowed to remain upon the statute book to the present time. It must therefore be considered as a contemporary interpretation, entitled to much weight. Stuart v. Laird, 1 Cranch, 299; Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304; Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264; Adams v. Storey, 1 Paine, 79, 90.

    It must be conceded that if the contract on which the suit was brought was made in violation of a law of the State, it cannot be enforced in any court sitting in the State charged with the interpretation and enforcement of its laws. Bank of the United States v. Owens, 2 Pet. 527; Groves v. Slaughter, 15 Pet. 448; Harris v. Runnels, 12 How. 79; Brown v. Tarkington, 3 Wall. 377; Davidson v. Lanier, 4 Wall. 447; Hanauer v. Doane, 12 Wall. 342; Wheeler v. Russell, 17 Mass. 258; Law v. Hodson, 11 East, 300; Little v. Poole, 9 Barb. & C. 192; Thorne v. Travellers' Insurance Co., 80 Penn. St. 15; Allen v. Hawks, 13 Pick. 79, 82; Roche v. Ladd, 1 Allen, 436, 441; In re Comstock, 3 Sawyer, 218.

    So far as appears by the record the plaintiff had no principal place of business nor any place of business whatever in the State of Colorado, and the making of the contract set out in the complaint was the only business ever done by it, or that it ever purposed to do in that State.

    The question, therefore, is whether, upon a true construction of the Constitution and statute, the making of the contract which the plaintiff seeks to enforce was, under the circumstances stated, forbidden.

    The contention of the defendants in error is that the prohibition against the doing of any business in the State by a foreign corporation, except upon the prescribed condition, includes the doing of any single and isolated act of business whatever. *734 Thus broadly stated, it is clear that the interpretation of the defendants cannot be sustained. In a case involving the construction of the statute, the Supreme Court of Colorado held that a foreign corporation might, without complying with the provisions of the statute, maintain an action in the courts of the State to recover damages for trespass to its real estate. The court said: "The prohibition extends to doing business before the compliance with the terms of the statute. We do not think this an abridgment of the right of a foreign corporation to sue. It extends only to the exercise of the powers by which it may be said to ordinarily transact or carry on its business. To what extent the exercise of these powers is affected we do not decide." Utley v. The Clark-Gardner Mining Co., 4 Colorado, 369. So it is clear the statute cannot be construed to impose upon a foreign corporation limitations of its right to make contracts in the State for carrying on commerce between the States, for that would make the act an invasion of the exclusive right of Congress to regulate commerce among the several States. Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168. The prohibition against doing any business cannot, therefore, be literally interpreted.

    Reasonably construed, the Constitution and statute of Colorado forbid, not the doing of a single act of business in the State, but the carrying on of business by a foreign corporation without the filing of the certificate and the appointment of an agent as required by the statute. The Constitution requires the foreign corporation to have one or more known places of business in the State before doing any business therein. This implies a purpose at least to do more than one act of business. For a corporation that has done but a single act of business, and purposes to do no more, cannot have one or more known places of business in the State. To have known places of business it must be carrying on or intending to carry on business. The statute passed to carry the provision of the Constitution into effect, makes this plain, for the certificate which it requires to be filed by a foreign corporation must designate the principal place in the State where the business of the corporation is to be carried on. The meaning of the phrase "to *735 carry on" when applied to business is well settled. In Worcester's Dictionary the definition is: "To prosecute, to help forward, to continue, as to carry on business." The definition given to the same phrase in Webster's Dictionary is: "To continue, as to carry on a design; to manage or prosecute, as to carry on husbandry or trade." The making in Colorado of the one contract sued on in this case, by which one party agreed to build and deliver in Ohio certain machinery and the other party to pay for it, did not constitute a carrying on of business in Colorado.

    The obvious construction, therefore, of the Constitution and the statute is, that no foreign corporation shall begin any business in the State, with the purpose of pursuing or carrying it on, until it has filed a certificate designating the principal place where the business of the corporation is to be carried on in the State, and naming an authorized agent, residing at such principal place of business, on whom process may be served. To require such a certificate as a prerequisite to the doing of a single act of business when there was no purpose to do any other business or have a place of business in the State, would be unreasonable and incongruous.

    The case of Potter v. The Bank of Ithaca, 5 Hill, 490, tends to support this conclusion. The charter of the bank provided that its operations of discount and deposit should be carried on in the village of Ithaca, and not elsewhere. The cashier discounted a note in the city of New York, for the purpose of securing a demand due the bank, and the fact that the note was discounted in New York City was set up as a defence to a suit on the note. In giving judgment for the bank, Nelson, Chief Justice, said, the statute "obviously relates to the regular and customary business operations of the bank, and does not apply to a single transaction like the one in question." A similar ruling was made in Suydam v. The Morris Canal and Banking Company, 6 Hill, 217. See also Graham v. Hendricks, 22 La. Ann. 523.

    We base the conclusion that the demurrer to the defendant's answer should have been sustained upon the interpretation we have given to the Constitution and statute, and do not find it *736 necessary to decide whether their provisions invade the exclusive right of Congress to regulate commerce among the several States. We have examined all the cases cited by the defendants to support their interpretation.[*] In none of them was the statute construed, similar in its language or provisions to the Constitution or statute under consideration, and the cases can have no controlling weight in the present controversy.

    We are of opinion that there was error in the judgment of the Circuit Court. The judgment must therefore be reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings, in conformity with this opinion;

    And it is so ordered.

    MR. JUSTICE MATTHEWS.

    Mr. Justice Blatchford and myself concur in the judgment of the court announced in this case, but on different grounds from those stated in the opinion.

    Whatever power may be conceded to a State, to prescribe conditions on which foreign corporations may transact business within its limits, it cannot be admitted to extend so far as to prohibit or regulate commerce among the States; for that would be to invade the jurisdiction which, by the terms of the Constitution of the United States, is conferred exclusively upon Congress.

    In the present case, the construction, claimed for the Constitution of Colorado, and the statute of that State passed in execution of it, cannot be extended to prevent the plaintiff in error, a corporation of another State, from transacting any business in Colorado, which, of itself, is commerce. The transaction in question was clearly of that character. It was the making of a contract in Colorado to manufacture certain machinery in Ohio, to be there delivered for transportation to the purchasers in Colorado. That was commerce; and to *737 prohibit it, except upon conditions, is to regulate commerce between Colorado and Ohio, which is within the exclusive province of Congress. It is quite competent, no doubt, for Colorado to prohibit a foreign corporation from acquiring a domicil in that State, and to prohibit it from carrying on within that State its business of manufacturing machinery. But it cannot prohibit it from selling in Colorado, by contracts made there, its machinery manufactured elsewhere, for that would be to regulate commerce among the States.

    In Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168, the issuing of a policy of insurance was expressly held not to be a transaction of commerce, and, therefore, not excluded from the control of State laws; and the decision in that case is predicated upon that distinction. It is, therefore, not inconsistent with these views.

    NOTES

    [*] In re Comstock, 3 Sawyer, 218; Bank of British Columbia v. Page, 6 Oregon, 431; Thorne v. The Travellers' Ins. Co., 80 Penn. St. 15; Roche v. Ladd, 1 Allen, 441; The Rising Sun Ins. Co. v. Slaughter, 20 Ind. 520; National Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Pursell, 10 Allen, 231; Cincinnati Mutual Assurance Co. v. Rosenthal, 55 Ill. 85; Ætna Insurance Co. v. Harvey, 11 Wisc. 394, Vilas & Bryant's Ed. 412.

Document Info

DocketNumber: 40

Citation Numbers: 113 U.S. 727, 5 S. Ct. 739, 28 L. Ed. 1137, 1885 U.S. LEXIS 1726

Judges: Woods

Filed Date: 3/16/1885

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 4/15/2017

Cited By (65)

Philadelphia Fire Assn. v. New York , 119 U.S. 110 ( 1886 )

Fritts v. Palmer , 132 U.S. 282 ( 1889 )

Crutcher v. Kentucky , 141 U.S. 47 ( 1891 )

Hooper v. California , 155 U.S. 648 ( 1895 )

Blake v. McClung , 172 U.S. 239 ( 1898 )

Fairbank v. United States , 181 U.S. 283 ( 1901 )

Anglo-Am. Prov. Co. v. Davis Prov. Co. No. 1 , 191 U.S. 373 ( 1903 )

International Textbook Co. v. Pigg , 217 U.S. 91 ( 1910 )

Buck Stove & Range Co. v. Vickers , 226 U.S. 205 ( 1912 )

Erlanger Mills, Inc. v. Cohoes Fibre Mills, Inc. , 239 F.2d 502 ( 1956 )

charilaos-gkiafis-v-steamship-yiosonas-her-engines-boilers-boats , 342 F.2d 546 ( 1965 )

Roberts v. Spray , 71 Ariz. 60 ( 1950 )

Redwine v. Schenley Industries, Inc. , 210 Ga. 769 ( 1954 )

Bradner v. Hammond , 553 P.2d 1 ( 1976 )

Joiner v. City of Dallas , 380 F. Supp. 754 ( 1974 )

Hogue-Kellogg Co. v. GL Webster Canning Co. , 22 F.2d 384 ( 1927 )

Rosenblum v. Anglim , 135 F.2d 512 ( 1943 )

Roark v. American Distilling Co. , 97 F.2d 297 ( 1938 )

Mandel Bros. v. Henry A. O'Neil, Inc. , 69 F.2d 452 ( 1934 )

Ryals v. Pigott , 580 So. 2d 1140 ( 1990 )

View All Citing Opinions »