Case Name: INVESTORS SYNDICATE, Plaintiff, v. HIRNING et al, Defendants
Court: South Dakota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: South Dakota
Decision Date: 1918-03-26
Citations: 40 S.D. 251
Docket Number: File No. 4352
Parties: INVESTORS SYNDICATE, Plaintiff, v. HIRNING et al, Defendants.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Dakota Reports
Volume: 40
Pages: 251–256

Head Matter:
INVESTORS SYNDICATE, Plaintiff, v. HIRNING et al, Defendants.
(167 N. W. 141.)
(File No. 4352.
Opinion filed March 26, 1918.)
1. State Securities -Commission. — Certiorari—Assumption, of Authority to lácense Investment -Company, Effect, re Statute Governing Building Association.
In a certiorari proceeding to review action of State Securities Commission in making an order requiring, as conditional precedent to plaintiff’s continuance in business as an investment company, held, that by assuming authority to grant such permit if securities are deposited, the Commission conceded that plaintiff’s business does not bring it within provisions óf Laws 1915, Cfi. 108, regulatory of ‘building and loan associations and savings associations.
2. State Securities Commission — Jurisdiction to Require Deposits as Condition to Granting Business Permit to Investment Company — Statute.
Tbe State Securities Commission, is without jurisdiction to require deposit of securities as a condition precedent to granting to a concern whose business is substantially that of an investment company, a permit to do business within this state; construing Laws 1915, Ch. 27 5, conferring upon State Securities Commission authority to examine statements and documents filed in its office hy any investment company, etc., and to disapprove of the sale of its proposed stocks, etc.
McCoy, J., and Smith, J., concurring specially.
Original pcoicieeding in certiorari, in Supreme Court, by Investors Syndicate, a foreign cioirpomafloo, against John1 Hirning, Clarence C. Caldwell, 'and W. N. Van Camp, coUsltitutiing ithe State Securities Commission of the Sítate of South Dabdtfa, and L. W. Henderson, as secretary of sa'i'cl' Commission, far review of an cir-dier requiring, as a condition precedent .to plaintiff's being alllloiwedi to oomltinue in business in thiis state, :a deposit of certain!" seioulri'ties with said Commission, -ancl of an order of said Commission 'Cancelling and 'Setting asidle plaintiff’s permit to do business.
Orders annulled.
Gardner & Churchill, for Plaintiff.
Clarence C. Caldwell, Attorney General, and Byron S. Payne, Assistant Attorney General, for Defendants.

Opinion:
WHITING, P. J.
This is- a cerltibrari proceeding brought to review. certain action of the state securities commission, hereinafter 'designated "'ccnimiissiion.'' From the return it appears that tlhe Investors' Syndicate, plaintiff -herein, 'has been 'doing business in ¡this state for 'several years under a permit granted to it by the 'commission ini the year 1914; that the commlis'sion, being of the opinion that 'the plaintiff's business was such- as to' bring- it under -the provisions -of chapter 108, Laws 1915, and therefore under the superviisiion af the 'slbate pufohe examiner instead off the commission, 'Served upon Sa'idi plaintiff an order to show cause why 'the license theretofore iss'ued by tole 'commission should not be canceled; that, upon toe hearing on such order to 'show cause, toe commission, did not revoke plaintiff's license, but, retaining juirisdiiction aver the plaintiff, the commission' did on November 22, 1917, make an ¡order requiring, as a condition precedent to plaintiff's being allowed to continue ¡doing business in this sítate, ¡that it deposit 'certain .'securities vyltb the said eommis'slion; that plaintiff failed! to deposit tihie securities as .ordered'; 'and that the commission, on February 6, 1918, issued .an order canceling, vacating, and setting aside the said permit ¡above mentioned.
It is 'apparent that, by assuming to have authority to grant such permit 'if securities are ¡deposited, the commission concedes that plaintiff's business is not such as to'bring it under the ¡pnorvisitons of chalpteir 108, Laws 1915. Furthermore, that the commission w!as in error in ever Supposing that plaintiff was not under its jurisdiction w¡as conceded upon argument. Thus the sole question presented to us is whether the commission has jurisdiction', ¡under chapter 275, Laws 1915, to require the deposit of securities 'as 'a condition precedent to granting to an applicant a permit to do business within this State. The commission Iras failed to point oult any .provision of suCli law giving them .any such authority, 'and it is cle'ar that -it is wholly without such authority.
The order® otf sutíh commission herein referred to, one of November 22, 1917, 'the other of February 6, 1918, are hereby in all things annulled, Vacated, and set aside.