Court Opinion

ID: 4730129
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-08-12 02:55:05.23362+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:08:00.445266
License: Public Domain

Morris, J.
(dissenting) — I dissent. When appellant fully complied with the laws of this state, it became entitled to do business within this state and within the entire state. It had no locality except the state itself. The fact that it selected Seattle as its situs did not confine its business to that city, nor circumscribe to any extent its powers. It was a corporation in Spokane, and as much entitled to do business there, and to have its name protected while engaged in such business, as it was in Seattle. I do not comprehend upon what theory appellant can be clothed with greater powers in Seattle and less in Spokane. I know no law making such a distinction. Its powers are coextensive with the state, and should be so regarded and protected. Our statute, Rem. & Bal. Code, § 3680, protects it in the exclusive use of its chosen name, and such protection should be extended to all portions of the state. The judgment should be reversed.