Rudolph Wurlitzer Co. v. Dickinson
Appellate Court of Illinois
Assumpsit. Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Anthony J. Clarity, Judge, presiding.
1Opinion of the Court
Mr. Presiding Justice Chytraus
delivered the opinion of the court.
Defendant contends that, although plaintiff had paid the required" fee and complied with the other requirements of the act of 1899 and had obtained a license under that law to do business in this state and to prosecute suits in its courts, yet plaintiff may not maintain this suit or any suit in any court of this state. This contention is based upon the fact that the state adopted a new law in 1905, a non-compliance by plaintiff with that later law and the inhibition contained in that law prohibiting foreign corporations, who…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Oil Co. v. Van EttenSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- American Smelting & Refining Co. v. Colorado Ex Rel. LindsleySupreme Court of the United States · 1907
- Dick v. ZimmermanIllinois Supreme Court · 1904
- City of Chicago v. Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis RailroadAppellate Court of Illinois · 1909
- Weigle v. BrautigamAppellate Court of Illinois · 1898
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Pure Torpedo Corp. v. NationAppellate Court of Illinois · 1945
- General Petroleum Products, Inc. v. Merchants Trust Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1932
- Motive Parts Co. of America, Inc. v. RobinsonAppellate Court of Illinois · 1977
- Dean & Son, Ltd. v. W. B. Conkey Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1913
- Illinois Tuberculosis Ass'n. v. SpringField Marine BankAppellate Court of Illinois · 1935
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.