Mergenthaler Linotype Co. v. Hays
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appealed from Butler Circuit Court. — Eon. J. P. Foard, Judge. (1) The defense that a foreign corporation has not complied with the laws of the State where the suit is brought and for that reason cannot maintain a suit in the courts of that State, is an affirmative defense, and the defendant, if it relies upon said defense, must state all the facts which are necessary to bring its defense within the statute. It is not incumbent upon a foreign corporation to plead compliance.
Read the full summary
Appealed from Butler Circuit Court. — Eon. J. P. Foard, Judge. (1) The defense that a foreign corporation has not complied with the laws of the State where the suit is brought and for that reason cannot maintain a suit in the courts of that State, is an affirmative defense, and the defendant, if it relies upon said defense, must state all the facts which are necessary to bring its defense within the statute. It is not incumbent upon a foreign corporation to plead compliance. United Shoe Machinery Co. v. Ramlose, 210 Mo. 1. c. 649; Gromeweg & Sehmoentgen Co. v. Estes, 139 Mo. App. 36. (2)…
1Opinion of the Court
*125OPINION.
FARRINGTON, J.
The law is well settled that the failure of a foreign corporation doing business in this State to comply with the law with reference to obtaining a license, etc., as provided in the sections hereinbefore enumerated is a matter of defense which must be affirmatively alleged by the party relying on it. United Shoe Machinery Co. v. Ramlose, 210 Mo. l. c. 645, 109 S. W. 567; Groneweg & Schmoentgen Co. v. Estes, 139 Mo. App. 36, 119 S. W. 513; and there are numerous other decisions in Missouri to the same effect.
This judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded, first,…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- The Minnesota Rate CasesSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
- Robbins v. Shelby County Taxing DistrictSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- International Textbook Co. v. PiggSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
- Crutcher v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Purity Extract & Tonic Co. v. LynchSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Puffer Manufacturing Co. v. KellySupreme Court of Alabama · 1916
- Iowa-Mo Enterprises, Inc. v. Herman Avren and Vicki Avren, Iowa-Mo Enterprises, Inc. v. Herman Avren and Vicki AvrenCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1981
- State ex rel. Hays v. RobertsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1917
- State Ex Rel. Eaton v. HirstWyoming Supreme Court · 1938
- Baden v. Washington Loan & Trust Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1919
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.