Interstate Amusement Co. v. Albert
Tennessee Supreme Court
PROM HAMILTON. Appeal from Chancery Court, Hamilton County.— T. M. McConnell, Chancellor.
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Buchanan
The Amusement Company, when it made the contract on which this suit must stand or fall, when each item of the stated account on which it sued accrued, and when it brought this suit, and at the trial thereof, was a foreign corporation guilty of noncompliance with our statutes in respect of “all corporations chartered or organized under the laws of other States or countries for any purpose whatsoever which may desire to do *420any kind of business in this State.” The statutes above referred to are chapter '31, Acts 1877, chapter • 122, Acts 1891, and chapter 81, Acts 1895.
And so, by way of defense…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Hooper v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- County of Mobile v. KimballSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
- International Textbook Co. v. PiggSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
- Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance v. SpratleySupreme Court of the United States · 1899
- Williams v. FearsSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Cunnyngham v. ShelbyTennessee Supreme Court · 1916
- Peck-Williamson Heating & Ventilating Co. v. McKnight & MerzTennessee Supreme Court · 1918
- Richmond Screw Anchor Co. v. E. W. Minter Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1927
- Equitable Trust Co. v. Central Trust Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1921
- Lloyd Thomas Co. v. GrosvenorTennessee Supreme Court · 1920
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.