The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1913-04-01
DENIES RELIEF TO
DALTON COMP ANY
District Court Refuses Injunction
Asked by Adding Machine
Makers.
REMEDY IN STATE COURTS
Judge Pritchard Holds That Case
Is Matter for Corporation
Commission.
REMEDY IN STATE COURTS

Holding that the question submitted
may be judicially determined by the
State courts. the United States Dis
! trict Court yesterday denied the appli-
cation of the Dalton Adding Machine
| Company for an intcrlocutory injunc-
ton to restrain the Virginia State Cor
poration Commission from requiring IL
to secure certificate of authority and
to pay certain taxes in order to be
permitted to carry on further its bust
ness hn this state
The action began October 10. 1912,
with The filing of bill of complaint
by the Dalton Adding Machine Com
pany. a Missouri concern, setting forth
that the State Corporation Commission
was threatening To Erocced against IL
for alleged violations of the Virginia
statutes relating 10 the taxing OF for
cign corporations An Injunction was
asked TO restrain tho Corporation Com
mission from proceeding against it ons
the ground that its sales in Virginia
We're of strictly interstate character
and that ii could not therefore. he
| held liable.
Claims Exemption.
II was set forth i'll the bill of COM
/ plant that the company sold its add
! ing machines direct from it's home office
in Poplar Blun. Mo, ana that il was
not engaged in business in Virginia
within the meaning OF the State laws.
II claimed exemption from the obllga-
| ton 10 secure a certificate Of a>>Shor-
/ ty to do business on the ground that
the nature of its sales established its
J purely interstate character.
The state Corporation Commission,
through Attorney General Williams,
! HE'D Il demurrer. asserting that the
company was liable for the threatened
| lax, and that it was not entitled To
/ relief The demurrer was temporarily
I n M a. N
( plication of tho adding machine com
/ pany for an injunction
Circuit Judge Pritcbard ana District
Judges WaddIll and Rose heard argu-
Incnt in the injunction proceedings on
February :. The Dalton Adding Ma
chine Company was represented by
Attorney Thomas n Banning, OF Chi
cage. Attorney General Williams and
Assistant Attorney ieneral Davis APP
pcared for the state Corporation Com
mission The court took the matter
under advisemcnt handing down its
decision yesterday in an opinion writ,
ten by Judge Pritchard.
Virginia Inv CONSTITUTIONAL.
Judge Pritchard draws attention TO
the fact that the complainant does not
call into question the constitutionality
Of the Virginia statute, but insists
/ rather that the statute may be enforced
/ in such :: manner as To deny II right
guaranteed by the interstate commerce
clausc of the Constitution of tho
/ United States. The principal point re-
lied upon rs ground for relief is that
the Corporation Commission may so
construe the acts and conduct of the
complainant as to bring IT Within the
purview of the statute.
at is urged" says Judge Pritchard,
that the action OF the chairman OF
the state Corporation Commission. in
threatening TO institute suit for the
/ Of
complainanrs liability is in the nature
of a hindrancc or interference with
| complainant in the transaction of its
business, and that, therefore, ii is the
duty of this court III advance of Il trial
! by the State tribunal upon the facts
l.alleged. to assume that the State Cor
! poration Commission Will so coiistruc
/ the Virginia statute as TO disregard
! the provisions OF the Interstate Com
! merce clause OF the Constitution of the
| United States.
No Excessive Penalty Intended.
I 1t does not appear from the Virginia
| statute. Judge Pritchard holds. that il
| is unconstitutional, or that il showed
/ intent TO prevent by excessive penal
/ ties n foreign corporation from con
/ testing its liability hereunder. Quoting
| further:
"Injunctions are granted upon the
/ theory that the complainant is about
to suffer irreparable injury, and that
! he is without complete and adequate
remedy at law. In this instance ample
means are afforded by the State stat
ute by which the question as to the
| liability Of the complainant may be
! determined by competent tribunal.
IF proceedings should be Instituted
( by the Corporation Commission. 1t
+ would be for that body TO determine
/ upon tho facts as to whether the COM
/ plainant. as a foreign corporation, has
! ,l,.i,, i,,ui Ia,
! 1t then appears that the complainant
/ has not made any sales OF machines
except those OF an interstate character,
1T could not be held liable"
! Entitled to Appeal.
Should the Corporation Commi ssiou,
| after such hearing, find that the
company was liable, the statute con-
tains provision authorizing an appeal
to the Supreme Court Of Appeals of the
state. If that court should affirm the
judgment of the commission, Judge
! Pritchard points out, complainant, upon
| proper showing, would still he af-
| fordcd an opportunity to carry tho
! case to the Supreme Court OF the
| United States
| This court Judge Pritchard con-
cludcs, cannot in advance OF the pro-
! posed action on the part of the Cor
| poration Commission see it's way clear
to determine that that body will not
give complainant fair and impartial
hearing, and as we view the matter,
that IS the principal question we are
asked By the complainant to pass
upon.
I'VE do not wish to be understood
as expressing any opinion as TO the
liability of the complainant under the
Virginia statute. All we decide is, that
In view OF the allegations of the bill,
as well as the evidence which has been
offered. we do not think that com
painant, according to its own show
ing, is entitled at this stage OF the
proceedings to injunctive relief, and
its prayer. therefore, is accordingly
denied"
D
p,,unI,roy Iton.s U;N.d