Belle City Manufacturing Co. v. Frizzell
Idaho Supreme Court
APPEAL from the District Court of Latah County. Honorable Edgar C. Steele, Judge. Action to recover the purchase price for a threshing machine outfit. Judgment for the plaintiff. Manufacturing corporations and all other corporations whose business is of local and domestic nature are subject to the control of the state. (Crutcher v. Kentucky, 141 U. S. 47, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 851, 35 L. ed. 649; Coe v. Errol, 116 U. S. 517, 6 Sup. Ct.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the District Court of Latah County. Honorable Edgar C. Steele, Judge. Action to recover the purchase price for a threshing machine outfit. Judgment for the plaintiff. Manufacturing corporations and all other corporations whose business is of local and domestic nature are subject to the control of the state. (Crutcher v. Kentucky, 141 U. S. 47, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 851, 35 L. ed. 649; Coe v. Errol, 116 U. S. 517, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 475, 29 L. ed. 715.) And this irrespective of the proposition that a part of the business of such manufacturing corporation may be the sale of the products in…
1Opinion of the CourtSullivan, J.
— The respondent in this action is a foreign corporation, organized and doing business under the laws of the state of Wisconsin, and is engaged in the manufacture of threshing-machines and farm machinery and selling the same in the various states of the Union. On the twenty-sixth day of June, 1903, the defendant, who is the appellant here, gave an order to one M. J. Shields of Moscow, Idaho, for a threshing-machine, which order was taken on blanks furnished by the respondent corporation to said Shields, and it is provided in said order that the same is taken subject to the approval of said…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Paul v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1869
- Gloucester Ferry Co. v. PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Cooper Manufacturing Co. v. FergusonSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Norfolk & Western Railroad v. PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Diamond Glue Co. v. United States Glue Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1903
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Harrell v. Peters Cartridge Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1913
- Foore v. Simon Piano Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1910
- Smith Company v. DickinsonWashington Supreme Court · 1914
- Century Distilling Co. v. DefenbachIdaho Supreme Court · 1940
- Flint & Walling Mfg. Co v. McDonaldSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1908
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.