The record-union., 1897-12-29
CORPORATIONS HAVE RIGHTS.
THEY NEED NOT GO OVER THE
STATE TO SUE.
Judge Hart Oyerru1es an Order OF
Dismissal by a Justices
Court.

The case of the Union Land and
Stock Company against A. l.. Shinn,
appealed from an order of dismissal by
the Justices Court, was decided by Su-
perior Judge Hart yesterday. The
court reversed the order, and allowed
the defendant five days in which 10
answer the complaint or file a demur-
rer. The case involves some points of
general Importance. Following is
THE DECISION.
This is an appeal from the Justices
Court of Sacramento Township, from
q judgment rendered therein AGAINST
the plaintin upon q motion by the de-
fendant to dismiss said action because
said court had no jurisdiction of the
. subject matter of the action or the
person of the defendant, for the reason
that said defendant does not reside IN
the county of Sacramento, but resides
at the county Of Lassen and has not
contracted to perform any obligation
mentioned in said action In said county
of Sacramento.
Section S32 Of the Code of Civil Pro-
cedure reads: Actions in justices
Courts must be commenced, and, sub
ject to the right to change the place of
Iflal, DIS III lItlS NllciEJINi ~
be tried: Section When person
has contracted to perform an obllgatlon
at particular place, and resides in
another county, township or city-in
the township or city in which such OBJ
Ngatfon is to be performed, or in which
he resides, and the township or city
in which the obligation is incurred shall
be deemed to be the township or city
;oI, &c Tn ha ranrfnTn1PH. unless
there is a special contract to the con-
trary.'
Upon the argument of this motion
in this court. it was admitted that the
defendant, at the time of the COM
mencement of the action in the JUS
tees Court, resided in the county OF
Lassen. 1t was also admitted that the
principal place of business of the plain
tiff. corporation was in the city OF Sac
ramento.
THE action was brought on the au-
thority of Section $40 of the Civil Code.
for the purpose of recovering the sum
of $3.50 and costs alleged TO be Que
1lpon the assessment of the stock held
bv said defendant in said corporation.
In order to determine whether or not
the Justices Court had jurisdiction OF
the person Of the defendant within the
meaning of subdivision Z Of Section So
of the c. c. P, the important question
To be solved is: Are the relations or
the plaintiff and the defendant Of
c0nfractual nature in the technlca1
sense in which the term contract IS
generally understood? It is contended
bv the counsel for the defendant that
the liability arising against him or any
other stockholder Of a corporation, Dy
reason of an assessment on the stock
is one created by statute and not by
contract. and that therefore it cannot
he said that the rule laid down in Sec
ton S32. c. c. P, concerning the Jurls-
Giction Of Justices Court, is applicable
thereto.
There were cited by both the plain
tiT and defendant numerous authorl-
ties between which and the case at
lar I have looked in vain for some an
alOgy. and from which, therefore, /
have failed to obtain any light TO guide
me IN reaching a solution Of the ques-
ton involved If the complaint, which,
by the way, is, in my opinion, deficient
in many respects as a carefully drafted
pleading, had been somewhat more spe-
ci6c in explaining what the plaintiff
corporation had done in the premises,
showing il to have acted within the
rules Of the statute, and had averred
generally what the fact undoubtedly is
that, under its rules and regulations,
all assessments were payable at its
principal place of business, would
have had less difficulty in arriving at
a conclusion.
81 cannot. however, agree with the
learned counsel for the defendant that
this involves a liability created by stat
ute, any more than does any other La
bility resulting from contract and con-
tractual relations, arise by virtue Of
some law, for primarily, all contracts
and agreements are created or are gov
erned by either statutory or common
law. Under the Constitution Of this
State, corporations may be created by
a statute general In its terms and Vni-
form in its operations. The plaintiff
corporation was organized and created
under and by virtue OF the provisions
Of the general statute upon the subject
of the establishment and organization
Of corporations.
1T then became, IN the eyes Of the
law. person. for all purposes within
--------------------------