First National Bank v. Leeper
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Nodaway Circuit Court. — lion. William G. Ellison, Judge. (1) States can prescribe the conditions on which foreign corporations can do business within their boundaries. Bank v. Earl, 13 Pet. 586; Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168. (2) The Hanamo Telegraph and Telephone Company being a “Resident-Foreign Corporation” and having failed to comply with the statutes its contracts are void. Amusement Co. y.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Nodaway Circuit Court. — lion. William G. Ellison, Judge. (1) States can prescribe the conditions on which foreign corporations can do business within their boundaries. Bank v. Earl, 13 Pet. 586; Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168. (2) The Hanamo Telegraph and Telephone Company being a “Resident-Foreign Corporation” and having failed to comply with the statutes its contracts are void. Amusement Co. y. Amusement Co., 192 Mo. 404. (3) This rule applies to commercial paper and makes it void, even in the hands of an innocent holder. Downing y. Ringer, 7 Mo. 585; Comings v. Leedy, 114 Mo.…
1Opinion of the CourtEllison, J.
This was an action on a negotiable promissory note. The judgment in the trial court was for the plaintiff. The note was executed by the defend*691ant to H. E. Ralston and by the latter sold and indorsed to the plaintiff bank. The evidence showed that the plaintiff purchased the note for value, through its cashier, before maturity.
The defense was that the note was without consideration and was procured by fraud. This defense involves a construction of our statute (sections 1024, 1025 and 1026, Revised Statutes 1899) in relation to foreign corporations doing business in this State. It seems that a…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Cooper Manufacturing Co. v. FergusonSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Hamilton v. MarksSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
- Farrior v. New England Mortgage Security Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1889
- Beard v. Union & American Publishing Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1881
- Sullivan v. Sullivan Timber Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1893
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Connecticut Fire Insurance v. CoxSupreme Court of Missouri · 1924
- Perkins Manufacturing Co. v. Clinton Construction Co.California Supreme Court · 1930
- United Shoe Machinery Co. v. RamloseSupreme Court of Missouri · 1908
- Booth v. ScottSupreme Court of Missouri · 1918
- Amalgamated Zinc & Lead Co. v. Bay State Zinc Mining Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1909
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.