The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1909-01-29

executed plaintiff was and aiill ls 4
foreign corporation and aa such has
failed 10 comply with wilson's Rev 4
Ann. stat OF okla Sees. 1925 and ls27
lr bad aa 81 was not iae intent q ihs
Legislature hg laniblting such corpora
lion from doing business In the state
10 deprive q d iha dgh, 20 sue IN iia
courts os lo render vpic conifac
made by u m ,he state and a demur
gcr thereto was property msialned.
C0niracWal rights accrued prior
10 the adoption ot Secs, i3 and tt Of
Art. 9 Of the Constitution are not
/ Thereby aheetec
&. An anawer settling up d plea in
bar 10 q suit on 6 prommlasorY note
given in AID 81 ihe construction OF
,piaintifs line of road which alleG
glegcs thrt prior to lhe execution 1i
lihe note the payes then engaged u
lbulldine railroad IN westerly dirce'
ai0n. from given point II another
liata through the indian Territory aud
III the general direction 0f Guthrie.
OkIahoma. determined TO build sale
nrd ffumin its then termlnus IA tne
indian Territory 10 said city and on
lthnt date, unknown 10 defendant aud
ihe citizens cf said city entered Into
contract for It's construction; that
without disclosing thai determination
Hald railroad company BY and through
rs agents end representatives after
wards caused public meeting OF the
cltszens of said city TO be hold, und
then and there submitted to them and
others Interested Q proposition &c ex'
tend Us line Ok road from mits then
Iiormlnns IN the Indian Territory 90
said city and have the same IN opera.
fion IN eighteen months, provided they
would raise il bonus OF ifty lhousand
dollars within thirty days ! nthe form
cf nronsg0rs notes satisfactory TO the
raeee. 10 be turned over 10 a.. repre-
sentlnEq that another ely wa Il
glrong competitor for the rOad that
unless satisfactory arrangements wNrF
made With Il the fond would be divert.
ed 10 some other point. but II the
Terms of said bonus were complied
with. It would build It's road 70 Guth
fle. that there was telling Of rivalry
&. riyulry existing hetwcan The i've
ltltles which was well known Il lhat
time 10 said railroad company that
! said renreseulallnna were mahid Tor
lha purpose 81 securing said bonus,
and were false and deeepiiye and well
known to be such by the payee, and
sefe intended 10. aud did. deeaiYa
snld citizens. Including the defendant.
ind that TIE note sued on was execu.
ted on the strength OF such deceulion:
fiates facts sufficient q eonstlsute a
ulea IN bar Of recovery on said note
ION thp ground pf fraud, and dnnur.
I rer thefato was impropefle sustained
i. An anaw4r eettIng un . contract
n aId oE i nlea Of nonperfurmance ot
condition precedent lo recovery NJ 4
sun On IHomlssOrg note, which
hnws on It's face no pEiflty but which
said answer AYERS that said contract
was made hy one Of he PARTIES Ihfre.
10 as the special agent Of defendant
for the purpose e making saId con.
tract. IS a0nH as showing pfifity of
defendant thereto such al WIN enable
hlm 10 take advantage Of lls tefms.
ana demurrer lhfveEo was lmpfopef
sustained
i. Although 4 ii provided, Wilson q
Ref. 4 ann stat. Sec 8ea thar Time
n never considered aA of The ESSENCE
a. contract nuleae ~ Ils terms ez'
nrsssIg 50 nfpfIasd na rafIlenlar