Case ID: misc_25/html/0665-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Dugro, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The Hargraves Mills, Plaintiff, v. James Harden, Defendant.
    (Supreme Court, New York Trial Term,
    December, 1898.)
    Foreign corporation — It needs no certificate of authority in order to sue for goods sold within, but to be manufactured without, the state —Daws of 1893, chap. 687, § 15 — Constitutional law.
    The state of New York cannot prohibit a foreign corporation from selling within the state merchandise to be manufactured without the state, nor can it impose upon the sale burdensome conditions.
    
      The state cannot deny such a corporation the right to maintain an action upon such a contract oí sale until the corporation has procured the certificate of authority referred to in section 15 of chapter 687 of thé Laws of 1892, for a corporation is a “ person ” within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, providing that “ no state shall * * * deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws ”.
    In so far as chapter 687 of the Laws of 1892 attempts to affect foreign corporations in the manner stated, it conflicts with the United States Constitution (art. 1, § 8, subd-. 3), providing that congress shall have power “ to regulate commerce ® * * among the several states’’.
    PlAnraEF sought to recover damages for a breach of a contract of sale of merchandise to be manufactured. It appeared that plaintiff was a foreign corporation and that the goods, the subject of sale, were to be manufactured at defendant’s mills in Fall River, Mass. The sale was through bought-and-sold notes, a broker representing both. It was conceded that plaintiff had not complied with the statutory provisions regarding foreign corporations, referred to in the memorandum. The complaint was dismissed for the failure to prove compliance with the statute, and a motion entered for a new trial.
    Charles O. Brewster (Wallace Macfarlane, of counsel), for plaintiff.
    George W. Van Slyck, for defendant.
   Dugro, J.

This state cannot prohibit a foreign corporation from selling within the state merchandise to be manufactured without the state; nor can it impose conditions which operate directly upon such a sale, so as to be a burden (see grounds of Mr. Justice Matthews, in Cooper Mfg. Co. v. Ferguson, 113 U. S. 727; Gunn v. White S. M. Co., 57 Ark. 36; 10 Misc. Rep. 553; 32 N. Y. Supp. 492; 120 U. S. 489; Commerce Clause of the Federal Constitution-, by Prentice & Egan, 27, .28, 30; 178 and 195); nor can it deny to such corporation the right to maintain an -action upon such a contract of sale until the corporation has procured the certificate referred to in section 15 of chapter 687, Laws of 1892, for a corporation is a person within the meaning of the word as used in the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which provides that no state shall * * * deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Chapter 687, Laws 1892, attempts to affect foreign corporations in the way referred to, and, so far as it does, conflicts with that clause of the Constitution of the United States which reads: The congress shall have power * * * to regulate commerce- * * * among the several states * * * ,” and, to the extent of the conflict, is of no force. Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465, does not seem contrary to the foregoing. Of course, “ The-state is not prohibited from discriminating in the privileges it may grant to foreign corporations as a condition of their doing business- * * * within its limits, provided always such discrimination does not interfere with any transaction by such corporations of interstate or foreign commerce.” ■ Pembina Mining Co. v. Penn., 125 U. S. 189. Motion granted.

Motion granted.