Skip to main content
· 12/12/1898

Blake v. McClung

Citations

  • 172 U.S. 239
  • 19 S. Ct. 165
  • 43 L. Ed. 432
  • 1898 U.S. LEXIS 1651

Syllabus

<p>Chapter 31 of the acts of Tennessee of 1877, entitled “ An act to declare the terms on which foreign corporations organized for mining or manufacturing purposes may carry on their business, and purchase, hold and convey real and personal property in this State,” provided that corporations organized under the laws of other States and countries, for purposes named in the act, might carry on within that State the business authorized by their respective charters, but that “ creditors who may be residents of this State shall have a priority in the distribution of assets, or subjection of the same, or any part thereof, to the payment of debts over all simple contract creditors, being residents of any other country or countries, and also over mortgage or judgment creditors, for all debts, engagements and contracts which were made or owing by the said corporations previous to the filing and registration of such valid mortgages, or the rendition of such valid judgments.” Held, that, as the litigation proceeded on the theory that plaintiffs in error were citizens of Ohio, where they resided, did business, and had offices, that question could not now be considered; and as the manifest purpose of the act was to give to all Tennessee creditors priority over all creditors residing out of that State, without reference to the question whether they were citizens or only residents in some other State or country, the act must be held to infringe rights secured to the plaintiffs in error, citizens of Ohio, by the provision of Sec. 2 of Art. IV of the Constitution declaring that the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States, although, generally speaking, the State has the power to prescribe the conditions upon which foreign corporations may enter its territory for purposes of business.</p> <p>It is not in the power of one State, when establishing regulations for the conduct of private business of a particular kind, to

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • noting that State may require a non-resident to give a bond before suing in court, \although such bond be not required of a resident\
  • “[A] state cannot forbid citizens of other states from suing in its courts, that right being enjoyed by its own people.”
  • “We must not be understood as saying that a citizen of one state is entitled to enjoy in another state every privilege that may be given in the latter to its own citizens.”
  • \We must not be understood as saying that a citizen of one state is entitled to enjoy in another state every privilege that may be given in the latter to its own citizens.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Hablan, Beewer, Fullee

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.