The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1902-09-05

ing inEs court and sn 1asa AMY my s S9a
complied with the statute
II Injunction is allowed In this case it
the contract is void. void IN the fullest
sense of the term Ny convictle- Z
courts e nave used the word void. they |
have not meant void IN the fullest sense
ct the term because i the contract 5; :
stands as IL it never had been made and
nobody II bound by IT. Let US apply
Insurance company, a foreign CORPORATION.
desires to come into this state to do
missioner and have boards for the pur-
pose of determining what the corpora
Ton ,s snaa a N 9r Sea g bear pass unon
the question and determine that the cor
poration has complied with the law and
comes in In good faith. believing 1T has
right TO do business IN the state and goes
a construction nt Of the statute under which
1t came into the state BY the supreme
wrongfuly in the state and 1t is barred
from doing business until 1t has COM
plsd with CERTAIN ssat hs thq fhase H.
surance contracts made during the time
the company vas doing bushes .,u n the the
courts say to the holder of such an in
suranee contract: You have acted IN
good faith with the company and the
company has acted in good faith with
you: you have paid your money for your
polie tS y an1 IN me sood lai1h your propers
Is destroyed. but that policy IS absolutely
void and no recovery can be had upon II
because of the fact that the officers
whose duty it was to pass upon the terms
upon which the company should come
and should not have allowed the company
TO come inz Certainly not The courts
in good faith, the corporation was In the
/ state. It was in the state under the per-
mission OF the authorities that the state
has created to pass upon the question
how It should come IN. and it VIII never
do to say that those contracts are aos9-
lutely void and can not be enforced II
is true that If the corporation was wrong
fully in the state and brought suit upon
Of that note could defend upon the ground
that the corporation had not complied
with the statute and be relieved from
lishilitv because the statute SO provides
expressly, and the courts must enforce
that statutory provision But that Is the
the courts have meant IN many cases
where they have said that those con-
NO case has yet been cited and there
| is none that I have been aole to ma,
under a statute similar 70 ours. wnere the
void that was made by the company after
the company had been auoWed 70 come
directions of the boards which the state
| had created for the purpose OF detsrmln-
what terms No case has been found yet
| where the court had held that contract
| of that kind made under these eiIcuEn-
stances. was absolutely void. and appre-
bend that no court Will ever hold that To
dc SO ~ ny narfie IS III temssIves. But where
| the statute withholds the remedy, then
! the corporation must comply with the law
I before It is permitted to go into court and
| enforce a remedy which is available to
| corporations that have complied with the
| law
| AS TO SUPREME COURT DECISION
Now it is argued that our supreme
| court has settled this question 1t has set
ant Corporation had not complied with the
law when il came into this state and Gust
until it should comply with the law. As
| 1 understand the decision. our court never
company while in the state was absolutely
| void, and unless this contract IS void OF
| course Injunction can not be maintained
| Now I had intended to go through these
| be done. a clear and wen defined distinc-
| there is no conflict between the authori-
| ties at all. but time fcrhids that l should
| do that
/ have been furnished to me, and it seems
| to me thatfn this case. SO far as the Ia
Is concerned, the duty Of the court Is
.Some evidence was offered in support
PENDANT company had violated the anti
trust law But it must be remembered
that when these communlcatIons that Were
/ offered in evidence, these letters and tels-
grams were written-the great bulk OF
fhem-it was before the Bush law was
enacted and before the state uniformity
law was enacted, and it makes no differ
ence how many combinations there were
Question here is whether there was com
bination at the time this contract was Die
EFT is said that If a party shows tbs
existence of q trust at one time Il VII
be presumed to continue, but do not IN
| derstand that that rule can be appllec
| where the law Is changed, where the con
| ditiens change. I can readily understand
| how, when We had county uniformity ant
testing for school book contracts IN IN
eomnefition between the companies il
| each county because OF the subdivision o
the state One company would get II L
| they could get together and let one com
pany have It IN one county and auothe
that Wav- But that IS not the conditiol
, | now. The whole state IS let at one time
and the reason that might exist tor tnos
very nature of things, could not exist nov
i when it is a matter of state uniformity
OF course it might exist TO mild extent
: hut it could only exist to the extent o
: covering the contracts fer different schoc
rsftred to bid on one school book and re
fraiu from bidding on another
Il INSUFFICIENT TRUST EVIDENCE
But am not impressed with the test
mony that was given IN this case IN reia
tor to that transaction whether this wa
; | a trust or not The only witness that an
peafed and testified on behalf of the stat
was in this court in 1896 and went upo
J i the witness stand. according to his ow
! | testimony, and swore that there was q
: combination between those companies H
, | was then representing the American Boo
company and the suit then on trial wa
) | one against the American Book compan,
: AS a witness upon the stand at that tim
I | MS testimony was to the effect that Their
{ was no combination between those con-
: panies in relation to bidding on schot
! | books IN the different counties Now b
: seems to think that there was In an az
? pIfcafion for a temporary Injunction tn
: court would not care TO grant the In1un<
/ ton upon that testimony standing alone
: SUMMARY OF DECISION
: 1.-THE conclusion Of the court is that In
. state can not suffer any irreparabie In
: iszry bv the defendant American Boo
Z Company carrying out its contract an
: therefore Injunction viii not lie; that TIL
= | contract which the state Is seeking to er
r / ioiu is not void that it is only voidabl
= at most and that IT has been ratified sine