Case ID: sw_133/html/0921-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "SPEER, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

PRATT et al. v. INTERSTATE SAVINGS & TRUST CO.
    (Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.
    Dec. 17, 1910.
    Rehearing Denied Jan. 28, 1911.)
    Corporations (§ 677) — Right op Foreign Corporation to Sue — Appeal.
    An objection that plaintiff, a foreign corporation could not sue because it had not taken out a permit to do business in Texas, could not be raised 'by an assignment of error, where there was no statement of facts, and plaintiff’s-petition failed to disclose affirmatively that plaintiff was doing business in the state without having taken out a permit, and plaintiff might have established its case in such a manner as to %e unaffected by the statute regulating foreign corporations.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Corporations, Dec. Dig. § 077.]
    Error from District Court, Taylor County; J. H. Calhoun, Judge.
    Action by the Interstate Savings & Trust Company against John A. Pratt and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error.
    Affirmed.
    See, also, 122 S. W. 281.
    T. M. Willis, Theodore Mack, and A. H. Kirby, for plaintiffs in error. King & Isaacs, for defendant in error.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Deo. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Index
    
   SPEER, J.

The following is the only assignment of error presented: “The suit being by a foreign corporation for the recovery of money loaned by it in Texas, as shown by the pleadings, and there being no allegations in said pleadings under which the fact could have been proven that plaintiff had a permit to do business in Texas at the time of the loan, plaintiff could not maintain a suit for the collection of said loan, and the court erred in rendering judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant.” As may be inferred from this assignment, the defendant below has appealed from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, a foreign corporation, in an action for debt and foreclosure, and the sole question presented is whether or not the petition is sufficient to support the judgment.

A reference to the case of Panhandle Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Kellogg Switchboard & Supply Co., 132 S. W. 963, and the authorities there cited will show that the question here sought to be raised — that is, that the plaintiff, a foreign corporation, had not taken out a permit to do business in Texas — cannot be raised by demurrer, unless the petition shows affirmatively that the plaintiff is engaged in a business interdicted by law; that is, doing business in this state without having taken out a permit to do so. And a careful examination of defendant in error’s petition in this ease fails to disclose such a state of facts. But there is not even a demurrer urged in the present case; the sole reliance being upon the proposition contained in the above assignment. There is no statement of facts, and the petition is such that the plaintiff may have established its case in such manner as to be wholly unaffected by our statute regulating foreign corporations.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.