The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1907-08-06

Act entitled AN Act to require the
payment Of annual license fees by
corporations doing business in this
state, and reports to the Comptroller
General.'
The petitioner is foreign corpora
ton, the principal business Of. which
is lending money upon mortgages OF
real estate. On the 18th Of Novem-
Der, 1894, the petitioner filed a de-
claration in the office Of the secretary
of state, in pursuance Of an Act de-
claring the terms on which foreign
corporations may carry on business
and own property within this state,
the Act being approved December %,
1898. The petitioner stated that 1t
was the owner Of property in this
state; referring to the investments
made by it upon mortgages Of real
estate, and designated its place OF
business in this state as the office OF
its agent, Mr.. E. K. Palmer, Of Co.
lumbia. The declaration set forth
the manner of doing business to be as
follows: A person in South Carolina
desiring to make loan forwards his
application to the home Office in New
York, and if the application is ac-
cepted the notes and mortgages are
prepared in New York and sent to
this state to the applicant, who exc
cutes them in South Carolina and for
wards them to New York with draft
attached, which draft is paid in New
York. According to the terms Of the
contract the debt is payable in New
York and is collected and paid in that
city.
The first question considered by the
court was whether the facts show that
the petitioner was doing business in
this state, Justice Gary quotes Sec
ton 1857 of the Code, which provides
that it shall be a condition precedent
to the right Of any foreign corpora
ton to do business in this state that
it shall be presumed as fact and
part of any contract between such
corporation and any citizen Of this
state that the taking Of any fee or
payment from any citizen or corpora
ton Of this state shall constitute the
doing Of its corporate business IN
this state, and that the place Of the
making and of the performance Of
such contract shall be deemed to be
within this state, and that anything
contained in the contract or the rules
of the corporation to the contrary
shall not be Of force. This section
clearly shows that the petitioner was
doing business in this state. Even II
this statute had not been enacted the
exercise by the petitioner Of the cor
porate functions before mentioned
would have constituted the doing OF
business in this state. Chattanooga
National Bank VS. benson 19S, q. S.
4OS. This decision is considered at
some length in its application to the
case under discussion.
The next question is whether the
Act of 1904 is in violation of the con-
tract by which the petitioner was per-
mitted to DO business in this state.
When the petitioner was granted per-
mission to carry on its business IN this
state the Act Of 1888 and 1892 were
of force, certain provisions Of which
were incorporated in the Code Of 1902
as Section 1900, providing that for
eign corporations doing an insurance
or loan business shall pay to the comp
troller general an annual license Tee
Of SlOO on or before the 31st day OF
March. The petitioner paid the IL
cense fee. When the petitioner was
granted PERMISSION to DO business Cne
Act Of 1893 was also effective, provld-
ing that foreign corporations duly in
corporated under the laws Of other
states or countries are permitted to
locate and carry on business in this
state in like manner ''as the natural
born citizens Of the states Of the Unit
ed States, or Of such foreign country
might do under the law existing at
the time, subject nevertheless to the
terms and conditions in this Act here
after set forth" This provision be-
came Section 1.779 of the Code. Sec
ton 7 of the Act Of 1898 provides
that foreign corporations doing busl~
ness in this state shall be subject to
the laws Of this state, but are not per-
mitted to exercise any franchise or
enjoy any privilege or immunity 9TH