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


state, and reports to the Comptrolle
General"
The petitioner is foreign corpora
ton, the principal business Of whicl
is lending money upon mortgages O.
real estate. On the 26th of Novem
Der, 1894, the petitioner filed de
claration in the Office Of the secrctar,
of state, in pursuance of an Act de
claring the terms on which foreign
corporations may carry on busines!
and own property within this state
the Act being approved December %
1893. The petitioner stated that il
was the owner Of property in this
| state; referring to the investments
made by il upon mortgages Of real
estate. and designated its place Of
business in this state as the Office of
It's agent, Mr.. T.. *. 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-
ccpted the notes and mortgages are
prepared in New York and sent to
this state to the applicant, who exc
cutcs 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 See
ton 1877 Of the Code, which provides
that it shall be a condition precedent
to the right Of any foreign corpora
tion 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 takin" Of any fee or
payment from any citizen or corpora
tion Of this state shall constitute the
doing Of its corporate business in
this state, and that the place Of the
maxim" 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
ia
clearly shows that the petitioner was
doing business in This state. Even if
this statute had not been enacted the
exercise by the petitioner Of the cor
poratc functions before mentioned
would have constituted the doing Of
business in this state. Chattanooga
National Bank vs. Dcnson 1913. U. S.
los. This decision is considered at
some length in lis application to the
ease under discussion.
The next question is whether the
Act Of 1904 is in violation Of the con-
tract by which the petitioner was per-
mittcd to DO business in this state.
When the petitioner was granted per-
mission TO carry on its business in this
state the Act Of 1883 and 1892 were
of force, certain provisions of which
were incorporated in the Code Of 1902
lis Section 500, providing that for
rign corporations doin" an insurance
or loan business shall pay to the comp
trollcr general an annual license fee
of 800 on or before the 3lst day Of
March. The petitioner paid the IL
rrnsr fee. When the petitioner was
granted permission to do business the
Net Of 1893 was also effective, provid-
IN" that foreign corporations duly in
rurporatrd under the laws Of other
states or countries arc permitted to
locate and carry ON business in this
state IN like manner "as the natural
born citizens Of the states of the Unit
rd 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 forlh.' This provision be-
came Section lao Of the Code. See
ll"n of the Act of 1898 provides
that foreign corporations doing busi-
ness in this state shall be subject to
thc laws Of this state, but arc not per-
mltrd |" exercise any franchise or
emf" amy privilege or immunity 9th
rr han the right to own property
and carry on business in like manner
aS individuals. natural born citizens
Of such state Of the United States or
Of foreign countries might do and sub