· 2/23/1909

Hammond Packing Co. v. Arkansas

Citations

212 U.S. 322
29 S. Ct. 370
53 L. Ed. 530
1909 U.S. LEXIS 1817

Syllabus

The right of a State to prevent foreign corporations from continuing to do business.within its borders, is the correlative of its right to exclude them therefrom; and, as this power is plenary, the State, so long as ■ no contract is impaired, may exert it from consideration of acts done in another jurisdiction. If the power exists to revoke a permit, the question of motive is immaterial for the purpose of determining the constitutionality of the legislative action exerting the power. The difference between the extent of the power which the State may exert over the doing of business within its borders by an individual, and that which it can exercise as to corporations, furnishes a distinction authorizing a classification between the two which does not violate, the equal.protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Where, as in this- case, penal provisions as to individuals are separable, and the state court has so construed the statute, any lack of. consti- ■ tutional authority to enact the statute as to individuals would not render the statute unconstitutional as to corporations. The chartered right of a corporation to d¡o business does not operate to deprive the State of its police power, and.the franchise to do business is qualified by the duty to do so conformably to lawful and proper police regulations thereafter enacted. The claim of an irrepealable contract cannot be predicated upon a contract which is repealable; and, where the reserved power to repeal, alter and amend charters is only to be exercised without injustice, it is within the -province of the state court to determine whether it has been so exercised, and its decision cannot be reviewed by this court Unless a contract has been impaired or some other and fundamental right within the protection -of the Federal Constitution has been de,nied. Where the state court has decided that the penal provisions of a. statute relate to both domestic and foreign corpor

How courts have described this case

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

rejecting due process challenge to court’s rendering default judgment against defendant who failed to comply with discovery order
upholding a default judgment against a defendant who refused to produce documents
upholding a default judgment for the defendant’s failure to comply with an order to produce documents because the court could presume, from the failure to produce evidence relating directly to the merits of the matter, that the case was lacking in merit
striking answer and entering default against a corporate defendant who refused to produce documents or permit its officers to be deposed does not violate due process because its refusal to produce evidence created a presumption that its asserted defense was meritless
striking answer and entering default against a corporate defendant who refused to produce documents or permit its officers to be deposed does not violate due process because its refusal to produce evidence created a presumption that its asserted defense was meritless
due process not denied when defendant’s failure to comply with statute requiring production of material evidence leads to striking of answer and default

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: White, Peckham

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.