Fritts v. Palmer
Citations
- 132 U.S. 282
- 10 S. Ct. 93
- 33 L. Ed. 317
- 1889 U.S. LEXIS 1875
Syllabus
<p>The constitution of Colorado provided that no foreign corporation should do business in the State without having a known place of business and an agent upon whom process might be served. A statute of the State made provision for the filing by such corporation with the Secretary of State of a certificate showing its placé of business and designating such agent'or agents, and also a copy of its charter of incorporation, or of its certificate of incorporation under a general incorporation law; and, in case of failure to do so, that each and every officer, agent and stockholder of the corporation should be jointly and severally personally liable on its contracts made while in default. Said act further provided that no corporation, foreign or domestic, should purchase or hold real estate except as provided in the act. The act did not indicate a mode by which a foreign corporation might acquire real estate in Colorado. G., being the owner in fee of a tract of realty in that State, conveyed it by deed of warranty to a corporation organized under the laws of Missouri, which had not then attempted, and did not afterwards attempt to comply with those provisions of the constitution or law's of Colorado. S’., the defendant below, claimed through this corporation. Some months after his deed to the corporation, G. executed, acknowledged and delivered a quitclaim deed of the premises to the grantor of P., the plaintiff below: Held,</p> <p>(1) That perhaps the reasonable interpretation of the statute was that a foreign corporation should not purchase or hold real estate in Colorado until it should acquire, in the mode prescribed by the local law, the right to do business in that State;</p> <p>(2) That these constitutional and statutory provisions were valid so far as they did not directly affect foreign or interstate commerce;</p> <p>(3) That the company violated the laws of the State when it purchased the property w'ithout having previously designated its place of business and
Judges: Hablan, Miller
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
87 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Blake v. McClungSupreme Court· 1898-12-12· cited 262×
- Butler Bros. Shoe Co. v. United States Rubber Co.Eighth Circuit· 1907-10-25· cited 143×
- Scott v. DeweeseSupreme Court· 1901-04-15· cited 124×
- David Lupton's Sons Co. v. Automobile Club of AmericaSupreme Court· 1912-06-07· cited 105×
- Sioux City Terminal Railroad & Warehouse Co. v. Trust Co. of North AmericaEighth Circuit· 1897-08-02· cited 102×
- Dunlop v. MercerEighth Circuit· 1907-10-31· cited 81×
- State v. American Book Co.Supreme Court of Kansas· 1904-04-09· cited 39×
- Munday v. Wisconsin Trust Co.Supreme Court· 1920-04-19· cited 35×
- Rogers v. Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. Co.Sixth Circuit· 1898-11-09· cited 35×
- Blodgett v. Lanyon Zinc Co.Eighth Circuit· 1903-02-23· cited 33×
- Louisville School Board v. KingCourt of Appeals of Kentucky· 1908-01-22· cited 31×
- Chattanooga, R. & C. R. v. EvansSixth Circuit· 1895-04-02· cited 30×
- Vaughn Machine Co. v. LighthouseAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York· 1901-07-15· cited 28×
- Washburn Mill Co. v. BartlettNorth Dakota Supreme Court· 1893-12-03· cited 24×
- Cæsar v. CapellU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Tennessee· 1897-08-17· cited 24×
- Allen v. Alleghany Co.Supreme Court· 1905-02-20· cited 23×
- Golconda Northern Railway v. Gulf Lines Connecting RailroadIllinois Supreme Court· 1914-10-16· cited 23×
- A. Booth & Co. v. WeigandUtah Supreme Court· 1906-01-03· cited 19×
- Synanon Foundation, Inc. v. BernsteinDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 1986-01-29· cited 18×
- Model Heating Co. v. MagaritySupreme Court of Delaware· 1911-10-16· cited 18×
Cites
7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- National Bank v. MatthewsSupreme Court· 1879-01-27· cited 353×
- Jones v. HabershamSupreme Court· 1883-03-18· cited 211×
- Cowell v. Springs Co.Supreme Court· 1879-11-17· cited 152×
- Doe Ex Dem. Governeur's Heirs v. RobertsonSupreme Court· 1826-03-18· cited 47×
- Hammond v. HawsU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania· 1801-05-11· cited 42×
- Phillips v. MooreSupreme Court· 1879-12-22· cited 38×
- Swope v. LeffingwellSupreme Court· 1882-01-23· cited 25×
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.