Model Heating Co. v. Magarity
Citations
- 25 Del. 459
- 81 A. 394
- 2 Boyce 459
- 1911 Del. LEXIS 67
Syllabus
<p>1. Pleading — Plea in Abatement — Authority of Foreign Corporation to Sue.</p> <p>The question whether a contract made within the state by an agent of a foreign corporation, which has not complied with the laws of the state, can be enforced, is properly raised by a plea in abatement.</p> <p>2. Corporations — Foreign Corporations — Contracts—Validity.</p> <p>Under Const. 1897, art. 9, § 5, providing that no foreign corporation shall do any business in the state, through or by branch offices, agents, or representatives located in the state, without having an authorized agent or agents on whom process may be served, and Act March 23rd, 1903 (22 Del. Lams, c. 395), making it unlawful for any corporation created by the laws of any other state or by the laws of the United States to do business in the state, through or by branch offices, agents, or representatives located in the state, until it shall have filed a certified copy of its charter, and the name of its authorized agent in the state, with a sworn statement of its assets and liabilities, and paid fifty dollars to the Secretary of State for the use of the state, and imposing penalties on the corporation and its agents violating the provision, a contract of sale by a foreign corporation, which has not complied with the provisions, through an agent located in the state, can nevertheless be enforced against the purchaser, who retains the benefits of the contract.</p> <p>3. Constitutional Law — Construction and Operation — Self-Executing Provisions.</p> <p>Const. 1897, art. 9, § 5, providing that no foreign corporations shall do any business in the state through or by branch offices, agents, or representatives located in the state, without having an authorized agent or agents on whom legal process may be served, is not effective, independent of statutes passed, pursuant thereto, to deprive a foreign corporation, which has not complied therewith, of the right to enforce a contract against a purchaser who retains the
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- discussing origins and existence of Delaware’s foreign corporation registration statutes back to, at least, 1893
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Curtis
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
12 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Allstate Auto Leasing Co. v. CaldwellSuperior Court of Delaware· 1978-09-27· cited 41×
- Wren v. DixonNevada Supreme Court· 1916-10-15· cited 21×
- E. A. Strout Co. v. HowellSupreme Court of Delaware· 1913-01-21· cited 15×
- Farmers Bank v. Sinwellan CorporationSupreme Court of Delaware· 1976-10-13· cited 14×
- G. R. Sponaugle & Sons, Inc. v. McKnight Construction Co.Superior Court of Delaware· 1973-02-28· cited 13×
- Klein v. Sunbeam Corp.Supreme Court of Delaware· 1953-03-13· cited 6×
- Mendolia v. ZakrzewskiSuperior Court of Delaware· 1941-11-20· cited 5×
- Taggart v. George B. Booker & Co.Superior Court of Delaware· 1943-11-02· cited 4×
- Klein v. Sunbeam Corp.Superior Court of Delaware· 1953-03-13· cited 4×
- Centralia Mining Co. v. CrawfordSupreme Court of Delaware· 2011-02-14· cited 1×
- In Re: Asbestos Litigation. Limited to Mary Anne Hudson v. International Paper Co.Superior Court of Delaware· 2015-08-25
- Wilmington Dry Goods Co. v. National Automatic Machine Co.Superior Court of Delaware· 1937-02-01
Cites
29 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- National Bank v. MatthewsSupreme Court· 1879-01-27· cited 353×
- Davis v. BurkeSupreme Court· 1900-12-17· cited 180×
- Fritts v. PalmerSupreme Court· 1889-11-25· cited 156×
- Butler Bros. Shoe Co. v. United States Rubber Co.Eighth Circuit· 1907-10-25· cited 143×
- Dunlop v. MercerEighth Circuit· 1907-10-31· cited 81×
- Hyatt v. AllenCalifornia Supreme Court· 1880-07-01· cited 54×
- Cary-Lombard Lumber Co. v. ThomasTennessee Supreme Court· 1893-05-20· cited 54×
- Cincinnati Mutual Health Assurance Co. v. RosenthalIllinois Supreme Court· 1870-09-15· cited 53×
- Toledo Tie & L. Co. v. ThomasWest Virginia Supreme Court· 1890-03-22· cited 45×
- Blodgett v. Lanyon Zinc Co.Eighth Circuit· 1903-02-23· cited 33×
- Lasher v. StimsonPhiladelphia County Court of Common Pleas· 1892-02-08· cited 31×
- Delaware River Quarry & Construction Co. v. Bethlehem & Nazareth Passenger Railway Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1902-10-13· cited 30×
- Stevenson v. EwingTennessee Supreme Court· 1888-09-27· cited 30×
- Horrell v. California, Oregon & Washington Homebuilders' Ass'nWashington Supreme Court· 1905-11-22· cited 25×
- Washburn Mill Co. v. BartlettNorth Dakota Supreme Court· 1893-12-03· cited 24×
- Bank of British Columbia v. PageOregon Supreme Court· 1877-12-15· cited 23×
- Harris v. Water & Light Co.Tennessee Supreme Court· 1901-12-21· cited 21×
- Dearborn Foundry Co. v. AugustineWashington Supreme Court· 1892-10-11· cited 20×
- New York, etc., B. & L. Ass'n v. CannonTennessee Supreme Court· 1897-09-18· cited 15×
- In re T. H. Bunch Co.E.D. Arkansas· 1910-06-23· cited 15×
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.