General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. McCallum

10 S.W.2d 687, 118 Tex. 46, 1928 Tex. LEXIS 105
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 21, 1928
DocketNo. 4601.
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 10 S.W.2d 687 (General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. McCallum) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. McCallum, 10 S.W.2d 687, 118 Tex. 46, 1928 Tex. LEXIS 105 (Tex. 1928).

Opinion

Mr. Judge SPEER

delivered the opinion of the Commission of Appeals, Section B.

Relator is a corporation chartered under the laws of the State of New York. In January, 1920, it applied for and received a permit to do business in Texas in accordance with the statute which now is represented by Chapter 19, Title 32, Revised Civil Statutes, 1925. At that time its capital stock authorized, subscribed and paid up aggregated the sum of $2,000,000. In June, 1921, in accordance with the requirements of Article 1537 (1925), it filed with the Secretary of State an authenticated copy of an amendment whereby *51 its authorized capital stock (subscribed and paid up) was increased to $4,000,000, and in connection therewith paid to the Secretary of State the sum of $2,040.00 as filing fees. In November, 1922, it tendered to the Secretary of State an authenticated copy of an amendment, whereby its authorized capital stock was further increased to $4,800,000.00, and in connection therewith tendered payment of the sum of $460.00 as filing fees; this last sum was received by the Secretary of State, but upon the insistence that it was not a sufficient amount. In May, 1923, copy of another amendment whereby the capital stock was further increased to $6,000,000.00 was tendered for filing, but no filing or permit fee was tendered; filing was refused. In February, 1924, copy of the fourth amendment whereby the capital stock was further increased to $7,600,000.00 was tendered for filing, but no payment of further fee was made or offered, and the Secretary of State refused to file this copy. In April, 1924, copy of a fifth amendment increasing the capital stock to $9,000,000.00 was tendered, but no payment of any further fee was made or offered, and the filing of this was refused. On January 20, 1926, the corporation tendered copies of all the amendments and demanded that they be filed by the Secretary of State. No further payment of fees was made or offered, the corporation insisting that since it had already paid as much as $2500.00 in connection with the filing of copy of its original charter and amendments it had paid the maximum named in the statute; the Secretary of State refused to' file the copies thus tendered. Thereafter relator sought permission, and on April 19, 1926, secured leave, to file this proceeding in mandamus against the Secretary of State, and herein seeks an order compelling her to file copies of the amendments without further payment of fees or charges.

The statutes as shown in the revision of 1925 are substantially the same as those in force at the several times mentioned and will, in any event, control the question here presented for determination.

Article 1.529 provides:

“Any corporation for pecuniary profit, except as hereinafter provided, organized or created under the laws of any other State, or of any territory of the Unjted States, or of any municipality of such State or territory, or of any foreign government, sovereignty or municipality, desiring to transact or solicit business in Texas, or to establish a general or special office in this State, shall file with the Secretary of State a duly certified copy of its articles of incorporation; and thereupon such official shall issue to such *52 corporation a permit to transact business in this State for a period of ten years from the date of so filing such articles of incorporation. If such corporation is created for more than one purpose, the permit may be limited to one or more purposes.”

Articles 1530 and 1531 provide for certain information to be furnished to the Secretary of State as a guide to that official in the matter of issuing such permit. Succeeding articles define the rights of such corporations under the permit.

Article 1537 declares:

“Each foreign corporation, after a permit has been granted to do business in this State, shall immediately file with the Secretary of . State a certified copy of any amendment or supplement to its original articles of incorporation when any such amendment or supplement to its original articles of incorporation is filed in the state, territory or foreign country under whose laws such corporation is incorporated.”

These articles are embraced, as heretofore stated, in Chapter 19, of Title 32, of our latest revision. This Chapter relates to Foreign Corporations.

In Chapter 2, Title 61, concerning “Fees of Office,” there is Article 3914, in part as follows:

“The Secretary of State is authorized and required to charge for the use of the State the following other fees: * * * Each foreign corporation that files with the Secretary of State a certified copy of its articles of incorporation and any amendments thereto and obtains a permit to do business in this State, or which shall hereafter obtain a permit to do business in this State, that shall subsequently file with the Secretary of State a certified copy of any amendment or supplement to its articles of incorporation, shall pay to the Secretary of State as filing fees the following: Fifty dollars for the first ten thousand dollars of its capital stock actually subscribed, and ten dollars for each additional ten thousand dollars or fractional. part thereof; provided that in no event shall such such fee exceed twenty-five hundred dollars; * * *.”

The contention of relator is, that under these statutes it has paid to the Secretary of State all fees or charges properly collectible; while, on the other hand, the respondent contends that each separate filing of an amendment subsequent to the original filing, is a separate “event” within the meaning of the statute entitling the department to charge upon the basis of ten dollars for each additional ten thousand dollars of . authorized capital stock, *53 and that the limitation of $2500.00 refers only to the increased capital stock represented in such subsequent filing.

In order to determine these respective contentions, it is necessary to consider the nature of the exactment required by the State of foreign corporations desiring to transact business within our territory. The article first quoted makes clear that where such corporation desires to transact or solicit business in Texas or to establish a general or special office in this State, it shall apply to and receive from the Secretary of State “a permit to transact business in this State.’’ A private corporation has no right to transact its business in the State without the authority evidenced in such way as the State may direct. A corporation being an artificial person has only such powers as are conferred by its charter and can only transact its business in the manner and in the territory permitted by law. That the State may charge a price for the right to thus transact the corporation's business within its territory can not be gainsaid. The right is everywhere recognized. The price charged by the State for the exercise of such right, whether denominated “charge," “purchase price," “fees,” “franchise tax," or what not, nevertheless is a tax upon the right to do business in the State. That such charges and fees are “taxes” has been frequently decided or assumed by the United States Supreme Court. Looney v. Crane Co., 245 U. S., 178, 62 L. Ed., 230; International etc. Co. v. Massachusetts, 246 U. S., 135, 62 L. Ed., 624, Ann. Cases, 1918 C, 617; Locomobile Co. v. Massachusetts, 246 U. S., 146, 62 L. Ed., 631; Air-way etc. Corp. v. Day, 266 U.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Texas Commission of Licensing & Regulation v. Model Search America, Inc.
953 S.W.2d 289 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1997)
Chicago Corp. v. Shepperd
248 S.W.2d 261 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1952)
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Texas Attorney General Reports, 1949
Austin National Bank v. Sheppard
71 S.W.2d 243 (Texas Supreme Court, 1934)
Austin Nat. Bank v. Sheppard
71 S.W.2d 242 (Texas Commission of Appeals, 1934)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
10 S.W.2d 687, 118 Tex. 46, 1928 Tex. LEXIS 105, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/general-motors-acceptance-corp-v-mccallum-tex-1928.