White Sewing Machine Co. v. Harris

161 Ill. App. 122, 1910 Ill. App. LEXIS 2
CourtAppellate Court of Illinois
DecidedAugust 15, 1910
StatusPublished

This text of 161 Ill. App. 122 (White Sewing Machine Co. v. Harris) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
White Sewing Machine Co. v. Harris, 161 Ill. App. 122, 1910 Ill. App. LEXIS 2 (Ill. Ct. App. 1910).

Opinions

Messrs. Justices Higbee and Shirley

delivered the opinion of the court.

White Sewing Machine Company sued the defendants in an action of debt on bond for $600. The declaration is in the usual form assigning breaches of the condition of the bond as the failure of said Norman M. Harris to pay six promissory notes. The defendants filed a special plea in substance that at the time of the execution of said bond the plaintiff was a corporation organized in the State of Ohio and doing business in said state for profit, and is not a railroad or telegraph company, is not engaged in the insurance, banking or money lending business, and that said writings were executed in the State of Illinois to secure the purchase price of goods sold by plaintiff in Illinois since July 1, 1905. Avers that plaintiff had not prior to this suit complied with all the requirements of an act entitled “An act to regulate the admission of foreign corporations for profit, to do business in the State of Illinois,” approved May 18, 1905, in force July 1, 1905; and was not licensed and empowered by the Secretary of State under said statute to do business in this State, and therefore plaintiff cannot maintain its action. Plaintiff in its replication replied that on September 10, 1897, it made application to the Secretary of State for a license and complied with all the terms of the foreign corporation act entitled “An act to require every foreign corporation doing business in this State to have a public office or place in this State to transact its business, ’ ’ etc., approved May 26, 1897, in force July 1, 1897, and obtained a certificate from said Secretary of State empowering it to do business in this State for ninety-nine years, etc. A general demurrer to said replication was filed by the defendants. The court entered judgment on the demurrer in favor of defendants and against the plaintiff for costs and barring its suit, etc., and plaintiff electing to stand by its replication appealed. It is conceded by both parties to this suit that the only question in this case for our decision, is whether or not a foreign corporation which has qualified to do business in Illinois under said Act of 1897, has to again qualify under the said act of 1905 in order to continue doing business in this State.

The said Act of 1897 was amended by adding a few minor details, April 22, 1899. Session Laws of 1899, p. 118. No substantial change as to the requirements of foreign corporations to obtain a license to do business in this State was made by this amendment; and, so far as we are aware, no contention has ever been made that they were required by this amendment to requalify in order to continue to do business .here. Section 4 of said act was also amended May 13, 1905; but the amendment in no way affects the question‘here, and it was repealed before it took effeet by the express provisions of section 8 of the Act of 1905, now under consideration. Session Laws of 1905, 125 and 128. The provisions and regulations with which foreign corporations for profit were required to comply before they could be permitted to transact any business in this State, as provided by the statute of 1897 and the amendments thereto, are found in paragraphs 67b and 67c of chapter 32 of Hurd’s Revised Statutes of 1899, p. 466. For the purpose of aiding a proper comparison of these two paragraphs with paragraphs 67c and 67d of the new act of 1905, wherein are found the new provisions and requirements to be met by such corporations, in chapter 32 of Hurd’s Rev. Stat. 1908, p. 539, we here below give the provisions of the old statute rearranged and transposed so that they will follow as nearly as practicable in the same order that they are found in the new act; and for convenience we will number the paragraphs 67c and 67d as numbered in the new act, and will follow each quotation from the old act with the number of the paragraph of the old act from which such quotation is taken. The statute as amended in 1899 and as so transposed reads as follows:

67c. “Every company incorporated for the purpose of gain under the laws of any other State, territory or country, now or hereafter doing business within this State,”—“such corporation by its president, secretary or any officer thereof, shall make and forward to the Secretary of State, with the articles or certificate above provided for, a statement duly sworn to, of the proportion of capital stock of the said corporation which is represented in the State of Illinois by its property located and business transacted . therein and such statement shall further show the name and address of the agent or representative of said corporation in this State.”—“and shall file in the office of the Secretary of State a copy of its charter or articles of incorporation, or in case such company is incorporated merely by a certificate, then a copy of its certificate of incorporation duly certified and authenticated by the officer who issued the original, or by the recorder or registrar of the office in which said original charter, articles or certificate may have been recorded.”—“Upon a compliance with the above provisions by said corporation, the Secretary of State shall give a certificate that said corporation has duly complied with the laws of this State, and is authorized to do business therein, stating the amount of its entire capital and of the proportion thereof which is represented in Illinois; and such certificate shall be taken by all courts in this state as evidence that the said corporation is entitled to all the rights and benefits of this act, and such corporation shall enjoy those rights and benefits for the time set forth in its original charter or articles of association, unless this shall be for a greater length of time than is contemplated by the laws of this State, in which event the time and duration shall be the limit of time set out in the laws of this state. Such corporation having complied, as aforesaid, shall be required to promptly report to the Secretary of State any change in the name and address of its agent or representative in this State, arid any increase or decrease in its capital stock, and any increase or decrease of the proportion of its capital stock represented in this State by its property and business therein, by filing in the office of Secretary of State a statement properly sworn to, setting forth the facts: provided, that nothing in this act shall be taken or construed into releasing foreign loan, building and loan, bond investment, surety, or other corporations of like character from any provisions of law requiring them to make a deposit of money with a proper officer of the State to protect from loss the citizens of this State who may do business with such corporations: And provided, further, that the provisions of this act shall not apply to railroad or telegraph companies which have heretofore built their line of railway into or through this State, nor to insurance, banking or loaning companies.” All foregoing in 67c, old Stat. “And no foreign corporation established or maintained in any way for pecuniary profit of its stockholders or members shall engage in any business other than that expressly authorized in its charter, or the laws of this State under which it may come. ’ ’ 67b old Stat.

67d.

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

Related

Home Ins. Co. v. City Council of Augusta
93 U.S. 116 (Supreme Court, 1876)
Hammond Packing Co. v. Arkansas
212 U.S. 322 (Supreme Court, 1909)
United Hebrew Benevolent Ass'n v. Benshimol
130 Mass. 325 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1881)
Western Union Telegraph Co. v. State
101 S.W. 748 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1907)
State ex rel. Birdsey v. Baldwin
45 Conn. 134 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1877)
State v. Gumber
37 Wis. 298 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1875)
Capron v. Strout
11 Nev. 304 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1876)
Stevens v. Pratt
101 Ill. 206 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1881)
Weidenger v. Spruance
101 Ill. 278 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1881)
City of Danville v. Danville Water Co.
53 N.E. 118 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1899)
People ex rel. Hillel Lodge No. 72 v. Rose
69 N.E. 762 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1904)
In re Estate of Speed
74 N.E. 809 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1905)
United Lead Co. v. J. W. Reedy Elevator Manufacturing Co.
78 N.E. 567 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1906)
Segur v. Sorel
11 La. 439 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1837)
Armour Packing Co. v. Vinegar Bend Lumber Co.
42 So. 866 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1906)
Moore v. Township of Kenockee
4 L.R.A. 555 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1889)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
161 Ill. App. 122, 1910 Ill. App. LEXIS 2, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-sewing-machine-co-v-harris-illappct-1910.