Opinion ID: 2619544
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Inclusion of the Amount of the Claim of Interstate

Text: The challenge of the Interstate bill as nonlienable was initially made in appellant's preceding point, but the item is also attacked as having been erroneously included by the court because the foreign corporation had not qualified to do business in Wyoming prior to undertaking its work in violation of Art. 10, § 5, Wyo.Const., providing, No corporation organized under the laws of Wyoming Territory or any other jurisdiction than this state, shall be permitted to transact business in this state until it shall have accepted the constitution of this state and filed such acceptance in accordance with the laws thereof. Appellant says that the mandate of the constitution is clear and relying upon Interstate Const. Co. v. Lakeview Canal Co., 31 Wyo. 191, 224 P. 850, for a holding that any contract entered into by a nonqualifying foreign corporation was unlawful and unenforceable, insists that a recognition of the claim by the court was improper despite the provisions of § 17-36.113, W.S. 1957, C. 1965, providing in part, The failure of a foreign corporation to obtain a certificate of authority to transact business in this state shall not impair the validity of any contract or act of such corporation   . Appellant calls attention to the circumstance that the trial court found Interstate's claim possibly defective and accordingly did not order foreclosure thereof but notwithstanding this determined the Interstate item to be properly within the claim of Martin and Luther, which corporation was entitled to foreclose its lien. United argues that the claim of Interstate, the real party in interest, having failed the amount could not be included in the decree of foreclosure, and on the basis of Morris & Esher, Inc., v. Olympia Enterprises, Inc., Fla.App., 200 So.2d 579, 581-582, maintains that since Interstate proceeded with its own attempted lien the amount owed to it by Martin and Luther could not be a part of the latter's claim. An analysis of Morris & Esher does not sustain that position; the case is in no way analogous to the situation here but concerned an interlocutory appeal questioning the right of a general contractor's inclusion of amounts owed to subcontractors on the job in his complaint to foreclose a mechanics' lien. The lower court in its order had pointed out that the Florida statutes limited such a contractor to the amount of the direct contract price and had stricken from the general contractor's complaint the allegations of sums due by it to subcontractors. The appellate court reversed as to the claimants who had not instituted suit and affirmed as to the lien claimant who had sought to enforce his claim independently, remarking, 200 So.2d at 582: The trial court has the power to require at any time the addition of the subcontractors, materialmen and suppliers as parties plaintiff.    At the time of the final hearing, the court may require that the payments of so much of the appellant's claim as is based upon the appellant's unpaid obligations, be paid to the subcontractors. United having presented to us on this point neither convincing authority nor cogent argument, its contention is without sufficient merit to be recognized in this appeal.