**-OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS AUSTIN**  ***moYcm smA=ms**  **Arrom ”w.”** 

**G&S ”** **CL**

**- .** 

Honorable D. 6. Oreer Stata HighwayEngineer Texas HighwayDepartment **Austin 26,**  Texas

Dear Ur. **Oreerr** I.

recent date, whioh

the legal registra**truokiw oorporatioa**  **derrigaatier** Town

:;.~ Rrinoipal oi'fioe admittedly ia in BCounty. '.

"It is our.thougE that under the oiroumetanoee. the **‘ iruoking**  oorporation 0hould register ita motor vohiolea in **B county,**  the county in whloh it admittedly maintain8 ite prlnoipal plaoe o? buslneae.a~roti your question aod la order to eimplity our

wmer, weassume that tha oorporation in qusation ha8the sole legal title to, r&bt of poaaeaolon andoontrol OSsaid motor vehlalsa> This leaves us the taek of detereinlng the county in which the owner(the eorpor’;!tion in queetion) resides, be i8 provided in resgeot ta regirtration of inotor veblolea in mtiole 6676~-2, Vsrnonia Auuotated Clvll :Xatutes, 1925. Said Art~ole provide81

w3very owner of a motor vehlole, trailer or seal-trailer wed or to be used uponthe pub110 highways 

### oithisState shall applg l aoh year to the 3tate KiixhwavDeuartaent throuuh tlm CounterTaxColleotor oi tbir o&nty ia whioh iioresides fir tin reglafratloa o? each suoh vehiole owuedor oontrolled by hla for the enrulng or ourreat oalenda$ yew or unexpired portion thereoi; * * *” (Unders?oriw ourr)

i-4 automobiles owner 1s held required to re$tster automobile in aouaty of owaer@a reaidenos, aa against oontaatloa auto&bile oould herregistered In any oounty within atate. f. State, (Crfm. kpp.) 94 3. *. (2d) 180. QP

It is awell settled rule of 1s~ in this rtate that a oorporation ia a “person” withia the meaning of thst tera aa uae$ in oonstltutionrl and statutory provlsionr. Jur., Q. 655, snd oaaea there olted, 701. 10, Tax.

mtiole 1304, Seotion 3, Vernon’s Annotated Civil atutes, 1925, Wrequirea the lnoorporatora tg ‘state, in the ProWsed oharter, the plvoa or places where tin **busiaesa** of t~he ktmided oorgoratioa 1s to be trsnsaotsd. This m~ana, not that the charter isl required to atate the pl*oa whbre-:t$e prinolpal Orri0e iii to beglooated, but that thb 0rriOe must be,eotablirhed and 631.!mintained:‘.wfthln the limits of the eta.t@.’ 10Tax. Jur..,

W~tha abaenoe of express atatutory piwisiaa ii%- ia8 the lociality or the reridenoe or a oorpar:ition for partiouL~:plp QuWoaea withIn the state by which it was oreatsd, the gerbral ‘, rule 18that its residence 1s ‘where itr, prlnolpsl office or pltlce or businetss ir

.” 13 ;~ner. Jur., pY.ge28%.

### 322 fbnor<ible D. C. Graer, p-i@ 3

*It 1svery generally held that a corporation 1s an inhabitant of the state under whose law it is **inoorporated,** andthat it has a resldenoe wherever it conducts its ordinary business.” Pfttsburg &ater Heater Co., f. Sullivan, 115 Tex. a7 (Corn.App,), 288 S. **W.** 576, andoases therein cited; Sanders v. F.srmarst State Bank, (Cir. ~pp.)‘, 288 S. Vi,635.

In order to determine the county of residence, we first must de.tsrimlnewhether e charter reoltatlon as to the plaoe buslnese is to betransaoted 18c~n~l~slve over the aotual *itUs or. **the** prinolpal plaoe of bualnese.

In thie respeot and aesa& pertains to **the** question Of venue of suits against Oorporatione, the follrmlng &a been saidz In the ease or Brd Cattla Co. v. Texas Vegetable Union. (Civ. Am.). 28 8. w. 12d) 990, It was held th t where the oi&ter itiiii-rixe5 two plebe8 wtien its prinoipal 0rri068 are located, and, although only one of euch places :l~ actually ;ct, both are avollable for venue of a suit against said oorpora-

. In the ease of Hawkk BuokCo. v. Cassldy, (Civ. App.), 264 S. W. (26) 1145,wherein tbr controlling question wee whether the reoltatlona in the oharter OSthe oorporatlon designating Dallas County ae its plaoe of buslnees weeeuffiole&, to retain the venue tnere even though the oorporetlon wai not, in reality, USingsuoh oounty aa a place of residence, the Oourt held ae followr:
*Article 1304, V.A.C.S., rsqulree that the charter or any private oorporatlon muet set forth the *pl.aoe Or places where Its buelness 1s to br transaoted.’ Suoh statutea aie, no doubt, for the obvloua purpose of avoldidg disputes aato the oomPany’s *place of business’ or *domIol~e* and.to determine ‘venue, fix a situs ‘for the purpose of gsnerel ~urlsdlotlon and taxation,’ and to apprlos the stookholders where they maygoto inepeot t~hebooks and reOoIde or their oompeng. iid Flteoher Cyo. Corp., Psrm. lCdeo. 4046. Thedomicile of ths defendant oor-poratlon in thle oase wtisthus fixed in Del.laa

County for the purpose of venue*u:tfl ohanged in somemanner..authorised by law. In this deoislon, however; wedo not wish to be understood au holding that’the provisions of the oharter fix the venue exolusivsly in Dallas County. The prlnolpel oi’fios of the oorporatlon is admittedly in Tarrant County and thus venue against it might also be there under aubdlvlaion 93of Article 1995. V. 

## A.c.s. The~aonolusivenesa of the reoltatlonr In the oharter must neoeasarilg be oonetrued against the oorporetlon undnot lo its iavor so as to permit 

## It to remove a nuit from ths County of its aotual resldenoe to one designated in its oharter.” (Underoooring ours)

The effeat of the ruling, as announced in the two oases next above mentioned, on our question would~seemto be that suoh ohartar recitation is e declaration against the lnterest of the corporation and es suoh must be atrl,o9~y construed, against the oorporotlon and not in Its revor.

Those cases, rpeolfically on the venue question, refused to allow the oorporetlona to &y “hide end go seek” with plaintiffs end take advantage or themaerely beoauee of a tallaoloue etatement previously madeby the ,oorporatlons la their charter es to the plaoae where their buslnsss is .to be tranaaoted. This prlnolple, if applied to the question now before us, would eeemto rorbid the owner oorporatloa to ohoose arbitrarily lta registration sltus through a mere reoitatlon in its ohiirter whenin truth andf ’aot it doe8 not have even an otfiae In euoh oounty so ohoeen. To hold the contrary would be aoastrulng the ohuter reolta.tion as oonolusive in favor of the corporation and allow ah obvloue subterfuge et the will of the i oorporat Ion. 1~ :\ a situation eimilar in some respect8 to the one ln question was deoided by the Dallas Court of Civil Appeala P on the theory that the situs of the ho:- oflloe in regard to tax matters was a question of faot, and the realtetlone in the by-laws were not oonoluslve, andheld aa follows:

“The undisputed evidence ehows that defendant maintains the oharlaCer of offloe in Dallas that is

### 324

honordble D. C. Greer, Page S

Unually terrmsda *homeoffice’ end does not aainteln auoh en offloe in the elty of Austin, thougO lta by-law8 deeigmte the olty of Xustln es its hODK8 0ffiCe. In the former city la the 0rri00 0r the ixeoutlve heede of the easoclation, ngd in thet olty is tranaeoted all such business of thi, aaaooletlon as 18uaually tranaaoted at a homeoftioe. In view of this raot, the trial oourt found as a feat thst tha homeoffice was in the oity of Dallas, and we are’of the opinion that woh finding is warranted by tha uudlaputed fada in this oaae.* Texas &nployera* SM. Asa’n. v. City of Dallea, S9. 1y.(2d) 614 (oiV. APR.) (writ ibf.)r

As aby-law la merely a rule of aotion in aooordenoe with whloh the affairs of the corporation are to be conduoted, and aubjeot to the ohsrtsr andstatutory provlal0na, both, the oharter,reoitation aa to where its bualnesa la to be transeoted, endthe by-law passed la aooordsnae with said ohsrter reoltetlon, atend on the sameplane es to their oonolusivenesa;

The fuota iis set out in ybur letter olearly show that the oorporetlon in question *maUt$na nooffice of any kind either in TownAor eleewhero in I County.*

Let It be deflnltely ,understood that waare not ruling here on where tha raafdenoe for registration purposes would ba if the oorporatlon hadanoffice in the county v&t at the plaos deai6nated ln the ohsrter in addition to an offlaa in another county.

Considering the above, we hold that tin legal residence of the oorporatlon in question for thb purpose of reglatratlon or its motor vehlolea, on the baala of tba faota as set out in your letter, ie in BCounty and l$ot in XCounty.

,Truetlng thla answers your question, weare Yours very truly