Sucker State Drill Co. v. Wirtz
North Dakota Supreme Court
Appeal from District Court, Benson County; Burke, J. Action by the Sucker State Drill Company against Wirtz Bros. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. A contract by a foreign corporation doing business in this state in violation of law is void. United States Rubber Co. v. Butler Bros.
Read the full summary
Appeal from District Court, Benson County; Burke, J. Action by the Sucker State Drill Company against Wirtz Bros. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. A contract by a foreign corporation doing business in this state in violation of law is void. United States Rubber Co. v. Butler Bros. Shoe Co., 132 Fed. 398; MacNaughton Co. v. McGirl, 49 Pac. 651; Sherman Nursery Co. v. Aughenbaugh, 100 N. W. 1101; Oakland Sugar Mill Co. v. Fred W. Wolf Co., 118 Fed. 239; Heilman Brg. Co. v. Peimeisl, 88 N. W. 441; Commonwealth v. Parlin & Orendorff Co., 80 S. W. 791; Fay Fruit Co. v. McKinney, 77…
1Opinion of the CourtFisic, J.
The plaintiff, a foreign corporation, with its place of business and only office at Belleville, in the state of Illinois, brought this action in the district court of Benson county to recover a balance due as the purchase price of certain drills theretofore sold and delivered by ft to defendants. Plaintiff recovered in the court ■below, and the sole question raised on this appeal involves the validity of the contract under which the drills were sold; it being appellants’ contention that such contract is void because plaintiff had not complied with the laws of this state prescribing the…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Cooper Manufacturing Co. v. FergusonSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Caldwell v. North CarolinaSupreme Court of the United States · 1903
- Butler Bros. Shoe Co. v. United States Rubber Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1907
- United States v. American Bell Telephone Co.United States Circuit Court · 1886
- Coit & Co. v. SuttonMichigan Supreme Court · 1894
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Loudonville Milling Co. v. DavisSupreme Court of Alabama · 1948
- City of Atlanta v. York Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1923
- Sioux Remedy Co. v. CopeSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1911
- State ex rel. Hart-Parr Co. v. Robb-Lawrence Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1908
- Circular Advertising Co. v. American Mercantile Co.Supreme Court of Florida · 1913
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.