Legal Opinion

Sillin v. Hessig-Ellis Drug Company

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided March 24, 1930PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HaRT, C. J.,

(after stating the facts). Counsel for appellants contend that appellee is a foreign corporation, and is not entitled to maintain this suit, because it has not complied with the statutory requirements relating to the right of foreign corporations to do business in the State of Arkansas. On the other hand, counsel for appellee contend,, that the transaction here involved does not constitute doing business within the State of Arkansas by a foreign corporation within the meaning of onr statute. The record shows that appellee was engaged in the wholesale drug- business at Memphis,…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. People's Tobacco Co. v. American Tobacco Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1918
  2. Rose City Bottling Works v. Godchaux Sugars, Inc.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1922
  3. L. D. Powell Co. v. RountreeSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1923
  4. Coblentz & Logsdon v. L. D. Powell Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1921
  5. Linograph Company v. LoganSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1927

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. ManionSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1937
  2. Reynolds Metal Co. v. TL James & Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1954
  3. Roark v. American Distilling Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1938
  4. Berryman v. Cudahy Packing CompanySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1934
  5. Norm Advertising, Inc. v. ParkerLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1937

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API