St. Mary's Franco-American Petroleum Co. v. West Virginia

Supreme Court

St. Mary's Franco-American Petroleum Co. v. West Virginia

203 U.S. 183, 27 S. Ct. 132, 51 L. Ed. 144, 1906 U.S. LEXIS 1581

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedDecember 3, 1906

Docket98

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 203 U.S. 183 (St. Mary's Franco-American Petroleum Co. v. West Virginia) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

St. Mary's Franco-American Petroleum Co. v. West Virginia, 203 U.S. 183, 27 S. Ct. 132, 51 L. Ed. 144, 1906 U.S. LEXIS 1581 (1906).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Fuller,

after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of- the court.

It is argued that the act of February 22, 1905, is invalid under the Fourteenth Amendment, in that it deprives the company of liberty of contract and property without.due process of law, and denies it the equal protection of the laws. But in view of repeated decisions of this court, the contention is without merit. The State had the clear right to regulate its own creations, and, a fortiori, foreign corporations permitted to transact business within its borders.

In this instance'it'put all non-resident domestic corporations, which elected to have their places of business and works out-side of-the State, and all foreign corporations coming into the State, on the same footing in respect of the service of process, and the law operated on all these alike.'

Such a classification was reasonable and not open to constitutional objection. Orient Insuranc e Company v. Dagys, 172 U. S. 557, 563; Waters-Pierce Oil Company v. Texas, 177 U. S. 43; Central Loan and Trust Company v. Campbell, 173 U. S. 84; National Council v. State Council, decided November 19, 1906, ante, p. 151; Northwestern Life Insurance Company v. Riggs, post, p. 243; Brannon on Fourteenth Amendment, Chap. 16.

It is true that the prior law left it to the corporation to appoint an attorney to represent it, and that the act of February, 1905, changed-this so as to make the auditor such attorney, but this at the most was no more than an amendment as to the appointment of an agent, and when the St. Mary’s Company accepted its charter-it did so. subject to the right of amendment. And we-agree with.-, the state court that the *192 requirement of the payment .of ten dollars to the auditor for the use of the State does not amount to a taking of property without due process or an unjust discrimination. Charlotte Railroad v. Gibbs, 142 U. S. 386; People v. Squire, 145 U. S. 175. If the act is valid,, that is.

The objections going to the'expediency or the hardships and injustice of the act, and its alleged inconsistency with the state constitution and laws, are matters with which we have nothing to do on this writ of error, and the question whether, the provision that the corporation shall hot be required to pay any fee to any 'one theretofore appointed an attorney is invalid or not, requires no consideration on this record.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Mr. Chief Justice Fuller,

after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of- the court.

It is argued that the act of February 22, 1905, is invalid under the Fourteenth Amendment, in that it deprives the company of liberty of contract and property without.due process of law, and denies it the equal protection of the laws. But in view of repeated decisions of this court, the contention is without merit. The State had the clear right to regulate its own creations, and, a fortiori, foreign corporations permitted to transact business within its borders.

In this instance'it'put all non-resident domestic corporations, which elected to have their places of business and works out-side of-the State, and all foreign corporations coming into the State, on the same footing in respect of the service of process, and the law operated on all these alike.'

Such a classification was reasonable and not open to constitutional objection. Orient Insuranc e Company v. Dagys, 172 U. S. 557, 563; Waters-Pierce Oil Company v. Texas, 177 U. S. 43; Central Loan and Trust Company v. Campbell, 173 U. S. 84; National Council v. State Council, decided November 19, 1906, ante, p. 151; Northwestern Life Insurance Company v. Riggs, post, p. 243; Brannon on Fourteenth Amendment, Chap. 16.

It is true that the prior law left it to the corporation to appoint an attorney to represent it, and that the act of February, 1905, changed-this so as to make the auditor such attorney, but this at the most was no more than an amendment as to the appointment of an agent, and when the St. Mary’s Company accepted its charter-it did so. subject to the right of amendment. And we-agree with.-, the state court that the *192 requirement of the payment .of ten dollars to the auditor for the use of the State does not amount to a taking of property without due process or an unjust discrimination. Charlotte Railroad v. Gibbs, 142 U. S. 386; People v. Squire, 145 U. S. 175. If the act is valid,, that is.

The objections going to the'expediency or the hardships and injustice of the act, and its alleged inconsistency with the state constitution and laws, are matters with which we have nothing to do on this writ of error, and the question whether, the provision that the corporation shall hot be required to pay any fee to any 'one theretofore appointed an attorney is invalid or not, requires no consideration on this record.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 U.S. 183, 27 S. Ct. 132, 51 L. Ed. 144, 1906 U.S. LEXIS 1581, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/st-marys-franco-american-petroleum-co-v-west-virginia-scotus-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack