The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1900-06-12
THE CRAIG LAW
CONSTITUTIONAL
The Supreme Court So De-
c|ared Yesterday.
THE COURT STOOD 3 TO
judge Faircloth ..and Furches Were
Against the Law.
AN ABLE OPINION BY JUDGE DOUGLAS
All Foreign Corporations Desiring to DO Busl'
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 aid
well. two appeals, decided against
Mott VS.. Commissioners. Of Forsyth
county, error.
Herring VS.. Pugh. from Sampson.
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
ease 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
eion corporations TO become domestic
corporations before they can do bust
ness IN this State.
BY a vote of three to two the act
IL Htlu " UC ~
opinion of hat 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 a very
able and exhaustive one. going fully
into a discussion of the point involved.
I on1onriSnS CjZfpnn tNnpXV1ltfpn
pages. In course of the opinion, he
says:
I'm 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: 1.)
Whether said statute has the effect
Of making the defendant a domestic
corporation as distinguished from Il
mere licensees; and GU What is its
further effect under the United States
statutes Of removal.
1T is well settled that a corpora
ton being Il 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
the so-called law Of comfy. X X X
Foreign corporations may be entirely
excluded by any State. or may be
admitted upon any terms and cOndi-
tons that are not repu2nant to the
Constitution and laws of the United
States.
Here the opinion Of the United
States Supreme court in Paul VS.. Viz
ginia. IS [. 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 lays 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
by the open policy adopted by Ger
tain States of chartering corpora
tons with almost unlimited powers
for the sole purpose of transacting
business in other States. SO far has
this gone that we nave merchants in
this State, who. having failed as a
partnership subsequently, incorporat.
ed under the laws of the State. and
Immediately resumed their same ole
stand in the State of thier lifelong
residence with all the privileges and
~immunities of a foreign corporation
"Construing the act 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 a mere license
under which foreign corporations
might do business in this State. bu1
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 well 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 ha:
attempted to create a domestic cor
poratiOn, n o out Of natural persons
but out of foreign corporation tina,
has no natura or legal existence il
this State. This is only partially cor
rect. Whatever may be the wording
OF the act. its effect. as we'll as if,
) local intent iS 70 nrnnta 81 $1,000