Grand Forks daily herald., 1914-12-26
AN|D0N DECLARES
n. DAKOTA. LAW
UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Measure Compelling Com
panies to Provide Surety
Bond Knocked Out. (

Bismarck, n. D., Dec. 26.--Judgc
Amidon Of the federal court recently
handed down an order in case ut
Minot, declaring unconstitutional
North Dakota'S law requiring foreign
grain commission men to take out Ii
Ccnse in this state and furnish $20,-
900 bond.
AS a result of this decision the rail-
road commission has been deluged
by requests for the cancella-
tion Of commission merchants bonds
and refund of uncarncd license fee,
and the elevator companies and farm
ers doing business with Minnesota
| grain commission houses. if the deci-
sion Is accepted by tho railroad conf
mission and otherwise upheld. will be
without protection other than that af-
fordcd by the bond furnished by
these companies to the Minnesota
railroad and warehouse commission.
The decision has aroused a great
deal of interest among commission
and elevator men. farmers and nat
urally the surety companies. who by
1t will have to refund the unearned
premium OH bonds issued. It may
also, by virtue Of this decision, be
| necessary for the state to refund all
license fees paid i'll the past by the
commission houses The decision fol-
lows:
w. T. Cooper, et al, plaintiffs. VS..
r.. l.. Welch company, q corporation,
defendant.
This cause came duly on to be heard
upon the motion Of defendant to
uuash the service Of process herein
upon the defendant and dismiss the
cause, and was argued by counsel for
the respective parties.
think the motion must he grant
ell IN so far as chapter Sd of tho
laws OF 1897. as amended by chapter
SO of thc"iaws of 1903 attempts to reg
ulate the business of corporations and
individuals engaged in interstate COM
lncrce. it is void. II was conceded
upon the argument. and closely shown
by the evidence, that the defendant
is engaged in no local business in
North Dakota. 1t has no place of bus
mess there. It's only business in the
state consists in soliciting orders for
grain to be shipped to it at it's place
of business in Minnesota. Its business,
therefore, is exempt from the provi-
sions of tho statute above, referred
to. and falls exclusively within the
jurisdiction Of congress: and in so far
as the statute attempts to regulate
such business, it is void under nu-
merous decisions of the supreme court
Of tho United States. The same con-
struction has also been applied to IL
kindred statute by the supreme court
of the state of North Dakota in the
case Of Sucker State Drill company
VS.. Wirtz, II N. IL. 313. Tho forego-
ing was conceded at the argument of
the motion.
1t was sought to support the juris-
diction Of the court, however, upon
the fact that the defendant had filed
with the secretary of state a power
of attorney appointing that officer it's
attorney for the service of process
IN all actions againSt the company in
the state. Since tn. argument. coun-
sci for plaintiffs has G. presented to the
court a certified copy Of the power
of attorney. 1t appears that the. in
strument was executed in purported
compliance with the provisions of the
state statute above referred to. The
provisions OF that statute requiring
the filing of power of attorney, as
part of it's scheme, must fall with the
other provisions of the statute in SO
far as it relates to citizens doing in
tcrstate commerce business
1T was further sought to support
the jurisdiction upon the ground that
the general statute of North Dakota
REQUIRES foreign corporations doing
business within the state to file such
power of attorney appointing the
secretary Of state-'its agent fol. the
seFsice Oh process. Upon the showing
made that defendants business is con-
fined exclusively to Interstate COM
mcrce. do not think it falls within
the purview of tho general statute re-
quirlng foreign corporations to file a
power Of attorney. This was the hold
ing of the supreme court Of the state
i'll the case of Sucker State Drill com
pany VS.. Wirtz, I'LL N. d. 31s. do
not think. therefore, that the instru-
mept filed with the secretary of state
can in any view make the defendant
subject to the service of process in
this state
1t is therefore ordered, that the
motion be, and the same is hereby
granted and service of process upon
the defendant is quashed and the ac-
ton dismissed.
-Chas. r. Amidon,
Ind