Court Opinion

ID: 9533410
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:31:34.722896+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:29:02.846541
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Frantz
dissenting:
Since I take the position that nothing can be accomplished by a reversal of this case because of a serious jurisdictional question pervading the whole record, I respectfully dissent. Where it appears on the face of the record that the lower court was without jurisdiction, and in no wise could ever obtain jurisdiction, we should *167recognize that fact and on our own motion dispose of the matter accordingly.
C.R.S. ’53, 141-2-1 (2) provides: “Any corporation existing under the laws of this state may transact all or a portion of its business under an assumed name upon filing in the offices of the secretary of state and in the office of clerk and recorder of each county in which it transacts or proposes to transact business under such assumed name a certificate in respect of each of such assumed names setting forth the following: * * *” [listing the acts requisite to doing business under an assumed name].
The quoted passage is a part of the statutory law providing for the operation of a business in this state under a trade name. The first sübsection permits individuals to do business under a trade name, and the second subsection permits “any corporation existing under the laws of this state” to do business under such trade name. In each instance certain things must be done in order to satisfy the requirements of the statute.
The mention of individuals and of corporations existing under the laws of this state would seem to exclude the extension of the privilege to do business under an assumed name to foreign corporations. A corporation “has no right to any name as such except its corporate name.” N. Y. Belting & Packing Co., Ltd. v. Goodyear Rubber Hose & Packing Co., 20 Pa. Co. 493, 7 Pa. Dist. 76.
A corporation has existence under the laws of the state of its organization. The authorization or denial of authorization to do business in another state does not disturb by one tittle its existence. A foreign corporation authorized to do business in the state of Colorado under its laws has nothing more than a license or permission to operate in this state; its existence by virtue of the laws of another state should not be confused with its authorization to do business in this state. To interpret such terms as being synonymous results in semantic emascu*168lation. Courts should never give distorted meanings to words, even though in giving words their long established meanings injustice should result in a particular case.
In construing the section of the statute providing for authorization to foreign corporations to do business in this state, and Section 10, Article XV of the Constitution of the State of Colorado, which ordains that “no foreign corporation shall do any business in this state without having one or more known places of business, and an authorized agent or agents in the same, on whom process may be served,” the Supreme Court of Colorado in a very early case, Utley et al. v. The Clark-Gardner L. M. Co., 4 Colo. 369, pointedly said:
“State legislation of this character is held not to be in conflict with that clause of the Constitution of the United States which declares ‘the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States;’ nor with the clause which declares that Congress shall have power ‘to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States.’

“A corporation is the creature of local laws; it has no existence or absolute right of recognition outside the limits of the sovereignty which created it.

“For the recognition of its existence and the enforcement of its contracts without such limits, it is dependent upon the comity of the several States, and this comity may be extended upon such terms and under such limitations as each State may think wise to prescribe. Augusta v. Earle, 13 Peters, 538; Paul v. Virginia, & Wall. 168.
“The Constitution and statutory provisions cited, embody the policy of our State toward foreign corporations. * * *” (Emphasis supplied.)
Perhaps no clearer statement of the signification of a corporation having existence or “existing under the laws of this state” can be found than that contained in Turner v. Turner Mfg. Co., 184 Wis. 508, 199 N.W. 155. These *169words import an artificial creature whose birth, being,, and continuity of life flow only from the state of its incorporation. No other state can decrease, alter, condition, or lengthen its life span.
Note the following significant language from the last, cited case:
The charter or franchise of a corporation consists of two parts: First, its right to be or exist as a corporation; and, second, its right to do certain things in the exercise of powers conferred upon it by the state. Lord v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc., 194 N.Y. 212, 87 N.E. 443, 22 L.R.A. (N.S.) 420.
“[4] A corporation having the right to exist is also granted the right to do certain things and exercise certain powers. This is sometimes referred to as its right to do as distinguished from its right to be. At the common law, the formation of corporations by persons was prohibited. Therefore the right of citizens to associates [sic] themselves together for the purpose of forming a corporation is in the nature of an exception or exemption from the general rule of the common law. State v. Western Irrigating Canal Co., 40 Kan. 96, 19 Pac. 349, 10 Am. St. Rep. 166.
Therefore corporations may come into existence only upon such terms as the Legislature of the state of their creation may prescribe. Having been brought into existence under the law of a sovereign state, they become artificial persons. They may move from place to place within the state, may transact business in other states and other countries, subject, however to such limitations as may be imposed by the states or countries in which they seek to do business as they have not the right of natural persons. Wherever they may go, their existence, however, is referable to the laws of the state of their creation. This is demonstrated by the fact that courts of one state have no jurisdiction to adjudge a forfeiture of a foreign corporation’s franchise. * * *
“Does the law of this state require a foreign corpora*170tion coming into this state to reincorporate? We think not. The whole purpose of section 1770b is to prescribe the conditions upon which foreign corporations are permitted to transact business within this state. It is assumed that the corporation applying has a corporate existence derived under the laws of some other state, and that what it proposes to do and what it is to be permitted to do is to transact business as a corporate entity existing under the laws of another state. * * *” (Emphasis supplied.)
Authorization granted to a foreign corporation to do business in Colorado and creation of a corporation under the laws of Colorado cannot be equiparated so as to permit speaking of both as existing under the laws of this state. In the first instance, the foreign corporation operates in this state by its dispensation; in the second, we have the creature, the corporation, and the creator, the state — the creature owes its existence to the state.
The fact that C.R.S. ’53, 31-10-2, provided that foreign corporations “shall be subjected to all the liabilities, restrictions and duties which are or may be imposed upon such corporations of like character organized under the general laws of this state/ and shall have no other or greater powers” (the section pertinent to the question here), should make no difference in this case. The section has to do with powers and we cannot say of a corporation that it has the power to use a name— it has the right to use a name. There is,a vast difference between rights and powers.
Only a domestic corporation may use an assumed name; this privilege is not extended to a foreign corporation. Since it cannot rectify its incapacity to prosecute by filing an affidavit, even after suit brought, its inability creates a jurisdictional defect which remains constant. The trial court not having jurisdiction to permit the prosecution of a suit, we are in no better position and should dismiss the matter in this court or direct the trial court to dismiss the proceeding.