Davis v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.
Supreme Court of Arkansas
1Opinion of the CourtHart, J.
(after stating the facts). It is first contended by counsel for Davis & Worrell, the defendants, that the plaintiff, General Motors Acceptance Corporation, is not entitled to maintain this suit because it has not complied with our statute regulating foreign corporations doing business in this State. Crawford & Moses ’ Digest, secs. 1825-32 inclusive.
It appears from the record that the plaintiff has not complied with our statute prescribing the terms upon which foreign corporations may do business in this State. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the transaction in question does not…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Bamberger v. SchoolfieldSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- State Mutual Fire Insurance v. Brinkley Stave & Heading Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1895
- Scruggs v. Scottish Mortgage Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1891
- White River Lumber Co. v. Southwestern Improvement Ass'nSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1892
3Cited by19 opinions
- General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. WeinrichMissouri Court of Appeals · 1924
- National Surety Corporation v. Inland Properties, Inc.District Court, E.D. Arkansas · 1968
- Pierce v. C. I. T. Corp.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1935
- Burlington Savings Bank v. GraysonIdaho Supreme Court · 1927
- Equitable Credit Co. v. RogersSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1927
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.