The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-02-18
CAN REFORM HIS. ANSWER
Case of the Zion Company Against
e. L. Mayo.
SUPREME COURT OPINION
Right of Foreign Corporations to Main
tain Suits in the State Courts Under
Certain Conditions-O by
Chief Justice Brantly,

The opinion of the supreme court in
the case of the Zion Cooperative Mer-
tantile Institute of Utah against Edwin
L. Mayo of Butte, which was given a
few weeks ago and briefly referred to
at that time, was received by the clerk
of the court The opinion is of consid-
cradle Importance as it refers to the
right of foreign corporations to main
tain suits in the state courts under GER
tain conditions. The opinion is by Chief
Justice Brantly. The plaintiff sued for
S1,O6O.25 claimed to be due on ship
ment of four carloads of POTATOES from
Idaho Falls to be sold on commission by
Mayo in Butte. At the trial of the case
Judge Clancy sustained an objection on
the ground that it appeared it was
foreign corporation. but that it did
not appear that it had complied with
the laws of Montana relating to for
eign corporations doing business in this
state. The supreme court, in passing
on the question, said:
The court below evidently proceeded
upon the idea that in order to maintain
suit in the courts of this state to en-
force a contract made within this state,
foreign corporation must all ,ge ana
prove that it has complied with the
laws of the state emitting it to do bust
ness here and to make contracts of this
character. We, do not understand this
to be the law. Mr.. Thompson in his
commentaries on the law of corpora
tions after discussion this question
fully concludes as follows:
THE better opinion therefore, is that
in an action by a foreign corporation
to enforce domestic contract, it is not
only not necessary for the corporation
to aver and prove in the first instance
its compliance with the domestic stat
utes emitting it to do business within
the domestic state, but that, unless the
defendant makes an averment of nom
compliance in distinct terms, he cannot
Introduce evidence to show that such
was the fact" :"
me supreme court quotes number CT
authorities approving as sustaining that
doctrine, and concluding it's opinion
says: H.'
I'VE are aware that the authorities
are somewhat in conflict upon this
question, but this view seems to be so
consonant with reason that we adopt
it as establishing the better rule. This
conclusion may seen in conflict with the
holding of this court in Kent and Stan
ley against Tuttle in the Goth
Montana, but such. in fact is not the
case. In that case it was alleged in the
answer and admitted in the reply that
the plaintiff was engaged in merchan-
d1sing in the state of Montana, but had
never complied. with the laws Of the
state under which foreign corpora
tons became entitled to do business
here. Under this condition of the plead
ings this court held that it was the duty
OF the plaintiff to show upon what this
complaint was based so that the charac-
ter of the transaction could be passed
upon. In other words, it appearing that
it was foreign corporation engaged
in business in this state, it was incum-
bent upon it to show that at the time
the contract was made it was engaged
in Interstate commerce. In the case,
under consideration it appears prima
facie that at the time the contract was
made, the plaintiff was engaged in inter-
state commerce. and it therefore by its
allegations brings itself within the case
of Naughton VS.. McGirl, Goth Mon
tana, for it appears that at the
time the contract in question herein was
made the plaintiff was doing business
in the, state of Utah and was shipping
the produce of the state Of Idaho into
the state of Montana for sale, The
conclusions here reached are upon the
record as presented in this court The
defendant may so reform his answer in
the court below. if he can do so, as to
properly present the question for ad-
judication when the case is tried
again."