HE L%~~TORNIICY GENERAL 

OF TEXAS 

Honorable Wm. J. Burke Opinion No. WW-414 

State Board of Control 

Austin, Texas Re: Does Article 608, Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes, prohibit 

a resident branch of a national 

company from being considered 

as an eligible bidder to supply 

the State Departments with staDear Mr. Burke: tionery, supplies, etc. 

We have received your letter of March 14th in which 

you ask if, in our opinion, a resident branch ,of a national company can be considered as a resident of Texas, so as to be an 

eligible bidder under the prwisions of Article 608, Vernon's 

Annotated Civil Statutes, which reads, in part, as follows: 

"The Board of Control shall contract for a 

term of not exceeding two years with responsible 

persons, firms, corporations, or associations of 

persons, who shall be residents of Texas, for 

supplying to the State all printing, binding stationery and supplies. 0 o .I* (Emphasis added) 

We shall assume, for purposes of this opinion, that 

the resident branches, as well as the national companies, are 

otherwise eligible and that such branches are actually doing 

business in this State under proper authorization. 

The phrase Ita e 0 residents of Texas. . .I' as used 

in such statute, does not appear to have been specif&ally construed by the Courts of this State. Furthermore, the terms 

"reside", '%esidingt', "resident" and "residence" are elastic 

and should be interpreted in light of the object or purpose of 

the statute in which such term is employed. McGrath v. Stevenson, 77 P.2d 608, 1% Wash. 160; Switzerland General Ins. C 

y. Gulf Ins. Co,, Tex.Civ,App,, 213 S.W.2d 161. The usual Zport of "resident" however, is a legal residence, Buchholz v. 

Buchholz, 115 P. fi8, 63 Wash. 213. 

In our opinion, Article 608, relates to the question 

of with whom the Board of Control may contract or do business 

insofar as the purchase of the enumerated supplies or services 

is concerned. Who, then, are "residents of Texas",for purposes 

of selling such supplies and services to the State of Texas? 
Honorable Wm. J. Burke, page 2 U&J-414) 

A Virginia statute required a license to be obtained 

by every person selling goods'by sample who was not a "resident 

merchant". After holding that a person could be a resident 

merchant while not being a resident citizen, the Supreme Court 

of, Appeals of Virginia, in Sueer v. Commonwealth, 23 Grat. 935, 

14 Amer. R. 164, said: 

I' . . . The word 'residence', as used in connection with the words 'merchant', 'mechanic' or 

'manufacturer' was not intended to import a personal residence? but onlv the 'alace of business'. 

0 . 0 " (Emphasis added) 

In 8 Fletcher Cyclopedia Corporations, Section 4029, 

it is said that: 

,I a . . The rule universally obtaining in 

.both England and the United States is that a company, for jurisdictional purposes, may have a 

domicile, both where it was created and where it 

transacts business." 

Also, at Section 4046, a corporation ". . . might have a residence in every state wherein it does business and is privileged 

by its charter to do business. . . ". 

This seems to be the rule in Texas as well: 

"'It is very generally held that a corporation is an inhabitant of the state under whose 

law it is incorporated, and that it has a resin. ' 

0 0 . " (Emphasis added) 

v. Sullivan, 

F'ittsburg Water Heater& 

115 Tex. 417, 282 S.W. 576. 

This rule is restated in Nergenthaler Linotype Co. v. 

Herrmann, (Tex.Civ.App.) 211 S.W.2d 633, but the distinction is 

made that to be such a resident, the corporation must actually 

be doing business in Texas. 

In view of the foregoing authorities, in our opinion, 

branches of national companies which are actually doing business 

in Texas are "residents of Texas" within the meaning of such 

term in Article 608, Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes. 

We are not unmindful of the distinctions between the 

various types of eligible bidders specified by such Article in 

so far as they may be natural persons 

t * 

or corporate entities, 

but we feel that the controlling ques ion is whether they actually are doing business in Texas, and not in what form the 
Honorable Wm. J. Burke, page 3 NW-414) 

prospective bidder may be doing business. As pointed out above, 

we have assumed that the resldent branch is otherwise eligible 

and properly authorized. 

We are unable to determine any legislative intent, envisioned by Article 608, Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes, to 

prohibit the Board of Control from contracting with a branch of 

a national company, if the branch is actually doing business in 

Texas. 

SUMMARY 

Article 608 Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes, 

does not prohibit a resident branch of a national 

company from being considered as an eligible bidder. 

to supply the State Departments with stationery, 

supplies, etc., if the branch is actually doing business in Texas. 

Yours very truly, 

WILL WILSON 

Attorney General of Texas 

TIM:mg:wb 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

Geo. P. Blackburn, Chairman 

Riley Eugene Fletcher 

Ralph Rash 

'ii. 0. Shultz 

,qglJ 9t@LL$y 

Tom I. McFarling 

Assistant 

REVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

BY: W. V. Geppert