The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1918-04-17
TWO COURT DECISIONS
UPHOLD VIRGINIA LAW
tons Conforms TO Federal
Constitution
COMMISSION WINS CONTENTION
Ono Concerns Operations Disclosed
by Personal Injury Sutt--Cascs
Handled hy Assistant Attorney
General Hank.

The supreme court OF the United
States handed down two important
decisions Monday involving the con-
stitutionality of the laws OF Virginia
relating to incorporated companies OF
other states doing business IN TINS
state.
The virginia law provides that
every foreign corporation, that IS.
every corporation chartered outside
of Virginia. before doing business in
the state. shall comply with certain
requirements. They are: First, the
com PAW must appoint by proper
written formal lily an agent who lives
In Virginia upon whom notice or
process can he served in the event
Of the necessity of law suit or other
legal proceedings: second. there must
be flied with the corporation com
mission correct copies of the charter
of the company. and, third, a certain
license fee must be paid.
The two companies that forced the
final testing of the law were the Dial
ton Adding Machine company. OF
Ohio. and the General Railway Sig
nal company. of New York. Both OF
these companies were first hailed be-
fore the state corporation commits
sion. both received an adverse judg-
ment and appealed TO the supreme
court of appeals of Virginia. In both
cases, the court of appeals sustained
the findings of the corporation COM
mission, and there being questions
involved that affected the federal
laws relating to interstate commerce.
the cases were appealed to the United
State supreme court.
The Adding Machine Case.
sze3-n Ia, IN Fan
adding machine case was whether a
foreign corporation can ship goods
in Virginia, and sell and deliver an
article to a purchaser, at the same
time take an order for a like article
on the factory in another state just
as If one were really to order ac-
cording to sample, and by this means
be subject to, and protected by, the
laws governing interstate commerce.
These orders carried a printed waiver
OF approval. and the courts held that
they were q subterfuge.
The court was called upon to deter
mine whether the company was en-
gagged in interstate commerce mas
much as the company claimed that
their sales were made upon order
taken in Virginia. This question ts
finally determined
Il
considered by the court relating to
the constitutionality of the Virginia
statute which was whether the state
of Virginia could AK tax based upon
the capital stock Of the company, The
Virginia law provides graduated
scale OF tax which imposes certain
amounts varying with the graded
classifications of capital The COM
pany contended that this was tax
upon their property outside OF the
state. The state of Virginia took the
position that it was not such a tax,
but that the capital of the company
was used only as basis OF classih-
cation, and the same tax was against
all of the same class alike, irrespective
of the mount OF the capital stock
maximum limits of the class. The
courts sustained the position taken
by the commonwealth.
The Signal Company Case.
The Signal company case is pecu-
LARRY interesting because of the way
the matter came TO public attention.
The company made a contract with
tho Southern railway TO install GER
tain signals on its railway lines in
Virginia, and, having been for several
months at he work, an employe was
injured. He consulted his lawyer and
the lawyer got busy and prepared his
suit for damages but when he came to
file the suit, he found that there was
no such defendant listed in the re
cords of the CORPORATIONS doing busi-
ness in Virginia, either domestic or
foreign. There was nobody in Vtr-
ginia he could sue. and his only rem
edy was TO so to New York and sue.
The corporation mmission was
advised of the matter. and at once
issued a rule against the people do
ing the signal work to show cause why
they should not be fined for violat-
ing the law in Virginia relating to
foreign corporations
The all important question came up
also in this case as to whether the
state could levy a license based upon
the capital stock of foreign corpora
ton. The courts have held In this
case, as was held in the adding
machine case, that the Virginia law
is sound
Assistant Attorney General Joseph
ID. Hank appeared in both these
cases in the lower courts and In the
supreme court of the United States.