The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1899-11-05

courts cannot pronounce contract. fer suca
permitted purchases invalid. although they
tend 10 produce. and may temporarily pre-
doce a monopoly Q. s31Ch manufacture
contracts incidental TO euck permitted
purchases. and reasonably required 20 pro
t-ct the purchaser in the enjoyment Of the
business purchased. cannot De pronounced
BY the courts to De against public policy,
FOR the same reason"
By an examination OF the authorities
Il Will be seen that without statutory au-
thoTtty the trust corporation formed IN
der the laws CT the state Of New Jersey
would be Illegal and void.
If corporation Is legal under the Jaw.
OF the state where organized then II can
not be attacked in any other state for IL
legality. Zach state mas the right 10 en-
act such laws as /, deems proper for the
control Of It's Internal affairs a. long as It's
laws 10 not conflict with the constitution
and .aws OF the United States
Foreign Corporations.
The right Of foreign corporation to
engage III business in another state de-
Ponds upon The comfy OF that state and
this comfy Is again limited by the puo!.c
policy Of the state. which may 10 inferred
from its general attitude with regard 10
such corporations. or may be positively de-
cIsred by statute
Williams vs.. Gold Hill Mining Company.
s6 Federal Reporter. "A.
III the case % Runyan VS.. Coster's Les
see. IA Pet, IL. Il is said:
Every power which a corporation exer-
clses IN another state depends for its val
ieity uoon the laws OF the sovereignty in
which X is exercised and a corporation
can make no valid contract without the
sanction. express or implied, Of such sove-
relgnty."
To the same effect is the case OF Paul vs.
Virginia. Wall. l6s
A state has a rigat to exclude foreign
rs limits, except where the business OF the
foreign corporation is strictly commerce.
interstate or foreign.
In the case OF Pembina Con. Silver Min
ing and Milling CO. VS.. Pennsylvania. rs
L. S, ISL. the court held:
The only Limitation upon this power OF
the state 10 exclude a foreign corporation
from doing business within It's limits or
hiring Offices for that purpose or TO exact
conditions for allowing the corporation to
10 business or hire Offices there arises
waere the corporation is IN the employ OF
the Federal government, or where its bust
ness Is strictly commerce, interstate or
foreign"
a state has right 20 prohibit the trust
corporations formed under the laws Of the
state OF New Jersey rom doing business
In the state, but IL cannot prohibit the
trust corporation. Of New Jersey from
shipping goods Into the state where the
purchase Is made from the corporation do
ing business out Of TIE state, nor can It
prohibit the corporations Of New Jersey
from collecting the moneys due IL for goods
sold outside + the state
IN the case Of National knitting CO. vs.
Bronner. IS y. !. Supp. IA Il IL decided:
"A foreign corporation which has no
place OF business In New York. bat sells
goods through travelling statesmen. and re-
quires orders TO be approved a its homo
Office does not do business therein with
"a =
foreign corporations 70 obtain certificates
o. authority for that purpose.
The case Of American Broom and Brush
Co vs.. Addickes. AZ y. Y. Supp. ST., is 10
the same effect
A state has no power to impose nmita-
tions upon a foreign corporation 10 make
contracts within the state for carrying on
commerce between the state.
In the case OF Cooper Manufacturing Co.
va. Ferguson. li3 L. S.7%1. tho court says:
a state act which imposes limitations
upon the power Of n corporation. created
under the laws of another state tn make
contracts withir the state for CARRYING IN
commerce between the states. violates tina,
claus" q the constitution which conteTs
upon congress the exclusive right 10 regu-
late that commerce"
IN the case ~ Toledo Commercial! Co. vs.
Glen Manufacturing Co. decided by the
supreme coGr; ~ Ohio on November l..
1883 as y. Z. 1870. IN passing upon The
laws regulating foreign corporations doing
business within the state. says:
Docs not apply 20 a foreign corporation
whose business within the state consists
merely q selling through travelling agents.
ard delivering goods manufactured outside
% the state
Amid a score % authorities Il is suhi-
cienf 70 cite Manufacturing co. vs.. F"rgu-
son li3 /. :. ~. Robbins - Shelby ca
IN L 4a9, Horn Silver Mining 20. vs..
New York. l43.T. s. 2l4. brennan vs. City
% Titasvtll@, III l.. 5. 50. Colt vs. Sut-
ton. iu9 Mich. 224"
Corporations formed under the trust laws
Of the state Of New Jersey may sell their
goods through travelling sa:rS'ucn in any
state in the / MON where they can find
purchasers for their. So long as he orders
are forwarded 80 the of.ce IN New Jersey
for final approval ard shipment - the
goods ara the other states are powecless
70 prevent the goods being shipped into
tho state N 70 prevent the collection q
the rurchaeo money. contract vaH4
under the laws - TIE state of New Jersey
"a valid and enforceahie IN any state IN The
I-ntuu where the courts have Jurisdiction
q he parties and the subject matter.
Remedy.
TAe remedy fo- TIE prevention G., the
formation 81 nonopeiss ard trusts M Ter
the avs - ths state = New jersey Is a
rrrva} ~ rfte Laws ~ rru3ttl0g ths organiza-
tior ~ rA~ uou .eoiles ana trusts TIE
ether states hav" n- 'lghr or power "a -