The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1900-06-08
THE CRAIG LAW
CONSTITUTIONAL
The Supreme Court So De-
clared Yesterday.
THE COURT STOOD 3 TO 2
Judge Faircloth and Furches Were
Against the Law.
AN ABLE OPINION BY JUDGE DOUGLAS
All Foreign Corporations Desiring to do Bust
ness in North Carolina Must First Be-
come Domestic Corporations
in This State.

Opinions were handed down by the
Supreme court as follows on yester-
: day afternoon:
Houch VS.. Patterson, from Cald-
well, two appeals, decided against
defendant.
~ Mott VS.. Commissioners, of Forsyth
county. error.
modified and affirmed, costs against
appellant.
Faison VS.. Grandy, from Northamp-
ton, error.
Boone VS.. PEBBLES, from Northamp-
ton, affirmed.
Glass Plate Company VS.. Furniture
Company, from Buncombe, reversed.
OF these opinions the one of great
est general interest is that in the
case of Debnam VS.. Southern Bell Tel
ephone Company, from Durham. This
is an appeal brought TO test the va
lidity of the Craig Law. passed by
the last Legislature, requiring all for
eign corporations to become domestic
corporations before they can do busl-
ness in this State.
is held to be constitutional. The
opinion Of that court is written by
Justice Douglas and concurred in by
Justices Clark and Montgomery. Chief
Justice Furches and Justice Fair
cloth dissent and hold that the act is
unconstitutional.
Justice Douglass opinion is very
able and exhaustive one. going fully
- q ,,, l,,nI
1t comprises sixteen typewriter
pages. In course of the opinion, he
says:
''In the case at bar there are really
no disputed facts, the only question
being the construction of the said act
Craig Law of February 10. 1899. We
must therefore determine: ID
Whether said statute has. the effect
of making the defendant domestic
corporation as distinguished from ID
mere licensee: and (2) What is its
further effect under the United States
statutes of removal.
ut is well settled that corpora
lion being n mere creature of the law.
has no legal existence outside of the
sovereignty that created it. except
in so far as it may be recognized by
Foreign corporations may be entirely
excluded by any State, or may be
admitted upon any terms and condi
tons that are not repugnant to the
Constitution and laws of the United
States.
Here the opinion of the United
States Supreme court in Paul VS.. Vir-
ginia. rs L. S.. 16S is quoted at length
on this point, and Judge Douglas
adds:
This able opinion, coming without
dissent from the court of last resort
clearly Laws down the underlying
principles originating and governing
The statute now under consideration
The dangers therein pointed out have
. become too fully realized to be longer
ignored: and are greatly aggravated
bg the open policy adopted by GER
tain States of chartering corpora
tons with almost unlimited powers
for the sole purpose of transactin@
business in other States. So far has
this gone that we have merchants in
this State. who, having failed as a
partnership subsequently incorporat
ed under the laws of the State, and
Immediately resumed their same OLD
stand in the State of ther life-lono'
residence with all the privileges and
immunites of a foreign corporation.
"Construing the a. of February 10.
1899 Craig Law now under consider
alton. as a North Carolina statute. il
is clear to us that the legislative in
tent was. not to grant mere license
under which foreign corporations
might do business in this State. but
to require all such corporations to be
come domestic corporations. either by
re-incorporation or adoption. What
ever the process may be called. the in
tent of the act, as we'll as its legal eff
feet. was to make all corporations
complying with its conditions dOmes
tic corporation of the State of North
Carolina.
It's effect was to charter and not
to license.
But it is argued that the act has
attempted to create domestic cor