Hamilton v. Reeves & Co.

76 P. 418, 69 Kan. 844, 1904 Kan. LEXIS 343
CourtSupreme Court of Kansas
DecidedApril 9, 1904
DocketNo. 13,438
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 76 P. 418 (Hamilton v. Reeves & Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hamilton v. Reeves & Co., 76 P. 418, 69 Kan. 844, 1904 Kan. LEXIS 343 (kan 1904).

Opinion

Per Curiam:

Reeves & Company, a foreign corporation, brought action against C. E. Hamilton to recover the possession of certain machinery under a chattel mortgage, and recovered. The defendant brings this proceeding to reverse the judgment.

The only serious errors assigned are based upon the claim that the plaintiff, by failure to comply with the statutes relating to. foreign corporations doing business in the state, was disqualified to take the chattel mortgage or to maintain the action. The fact that the statute had not been complied with at the time of the execution of the contract does not make the .contract void. (The State v. Book Co., ante, page 1.) Before the commencement of the action, and, indeed, before the taking of the mortgage, the plaintiff had made application to the state charter board under chapter 10 of the Laws of 1898 for authority to do business in the state, which application was taken under consideration by the board. On December 20,1901, plaintiff complied fully with the provisions of chapter 127 of the Laws of 1901, allowing foreign corporations, under certain conditions, to take and enforce liens on real or personal property. The trial was had January 20, 1902. [845]*845Inasmuch as at the time of trial plaintiff’s incapacity had been removed the judgment will not be reversed because the statute had not been fully complied with at the time the action was begun. (The State v. Book Co., supra.)

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Related

Hogan v. Intertype Corp.
206 S.W. 58 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1918)
Boatmen's Bank v. Fritzlen
221 F. 154 (Eighth Circuit, 1915)
Beal v. Childress
139 P. 1198 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1914)
Boatmen's Bank of St. Louis v. Fritzlen
175 F. 183 (D. Kansas, 1909)
National Fertilizer Co. v. Fall River Five Cents Savings Bank
82 N.E. 671 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1907)
International Trust Co. v. A. Leschen & Sons Rope Co.
41 Colo. 299 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1907)
Boggs v. O. S. Kelly Manufacturing Co.
90 P. 765 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1907)
Friedenwald Co. v. Warren
81 N.E. 207 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1907)
Northwest Thrasher Co. v. Riggs
89 P. 921 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1907)
Ryan Live-stock & Feeding Co. v. Kelly
81 P. 470 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1905)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
76 P. 418, 69 Kan. 844, 1904 Kan. LEXIS 343, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hamilton-v-reeves-co-kan-1904.