Court Opinion

ID: 9868706
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 18:50:34.151668+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:53.371724
License: Public Domain

On Appellant’s and Appellee’s Motions for Rehearing.
Appellant directs our attention to the fact that we erroneously stated in our opinion that Jagoe was a foreign corporation, when in fact it was chartered under the laws of Texas. The opinion is ordered corrected *in this regard. Article 7091 relates to “any corporation, either domestic or foreign,” and visits the same consequences upon each, for failure to pay its franchise tax.
Attached to the motion is a certificate of the Secretary of State, showing that subsequently to the appeal in this case appellant paid all of Jagoe’s franchise taxes, and its permit to do business in Texas was reinstated. This exact point was presented in Stephens County v. J. N. McCammon, Inc., 122 Tex. 148, 52 S.W.(2d) 53, 55, and disposed of as follows: “When an appellate court is called upon to revise the ruling of a trial court, it must do so upon the record before that court when such ruling was made. A party to a suit will not be permitted to try his case in the appellate court on a different statement of facts than that presented in the court below. Willis & Bro. v. Smith et al., 90 Tex. 635, 40 S.W. 401; Holland v. Jackson (Tex.Sup.) 37 S.W.(2d) 726.”
Appellee insists that our holding that payment of the delinquent tax and reinstatement of the Jagoe permit would remove the bar to sue in the courts of this state is in conflict with the holding in Taber v. Interstate B. & L. Ass’n, 91 Tex. 92, 40 S.W. 954, 955; and that we therefore erred in modifying the trial court’s judgment in this particular.
This point was not involved in the Taber Case; and, besides, that case was predicated upon R.S. of 1895, art. 746 (now article 1536), which denies to a foreign corporation doing business in Texas, which has not filed its articles of incorporation with the Secretary of State, the right to sue in the state courts. This article is under title 32 of the statutes, which deals generally with private corporations, chapter *32319 (article 1529 et seq.) whereof (in which the article appears) prescribes the things essential to be done as prerequisite to doing business in Texas by foreign corporations. Article 7091 is under the general title of the statutes dealing with ta'xation. It relates to corporations (foreign and domestic) that have theretofore complied with the statutes prescribing prerequisites to obtaining a permit to do business, but have thereafter lost such permit by failure to pay the franchise tax. The article is a revenue enforcement measure pure and simple. _ Subsequent payment of the tax and reinstatement of the permit has the effect of removing the disability. This was the exact holding in the Federal Crude Oil Company Case. It is true, in that case the permit was in good standing when the cause of action arose. But the principle involved is the same. The statute does not affect the validity of the cause of action, whether it arose prior or subsequently to the forfeiture. That being true, and the statute being a revenue enforcement measure'only, it necessarily follows that payment of the tax, and reinstatement of the permit, removes the penalty.
Whether a similar holding would apply to a foreign corporation that was doing business in Texas without ever having obtained a permit is not here involved. Nor was that question involved in the Taber Case. The case arose upon certified question ; and the sole issue was one of burden of proof, namely, whether it was necessary for a foreign corporation doing business in Texas to prove its allegation that it had obtained a permit. The court answered “that it was necessary for the corporation (plaintiff below) to prove that it had a permit to do business in Texas at the time that the contract sued upon was made.” The answer followed the form of the question certified, and applied to the fact situation presented in the certificate. If, however, it be conceded that a foreign corporation that has never complied with article 1529 et seq., at the time the cause-of action arose, could not, by subsequent compliance and securing a permit, sue in the Texas courts upon such cause of action, it does not necessarily follow that a] like construction should be given to article 7091, since, as stated, articles 1536 and 7091 appear under different titles in the statutes, dealing with wholly different objectives.
Appellee further urges that our holding ignores the following provision in article 7091: “In any suit against such corporation on a cause of action arising before such forfeiture, no affirmative relief shall be granted to such corporation, unless its right to do business in this State shall be revived as provided in this chapter.” It is argued that the express authority to sue upon revival of the permit, granted by this provision, in cases where the cause of action arose prior to the forfeiture, excludes, by implication, revival of the right to sue upon causes of action arising at a time when the forfeiture was in effect. This, under the principle of inclusio u'nius est exclusio alterius. We do not give this construction to the clause. The distinction which it draws in favor of causes of action arising prior to the forfeiture relates only to defensive, as contrasted with affirmative, relief. In other words, the right to defend in the state courts is not taken away as to causes of action arising prior to the forfeiture; but only the right to affirmative relief as to such causes of actions. It is to be noted that such right to affirmative relief is expressly denied unless the “right to1 do business in this state shall be revived as provided in this chapter.” The only provision in the chapter for such revival is to the effect that this may be done at “any time within six months after such forfeiture.” If the doctrine of inclusio unius were applied to this provision, it would exclude the right of revival after the six months’ period. The Supreme Court refused to apply this doctrine to this clause in the Federal Crude Oil Company Case; and the same reasoning with equal force requires its nonapplication in the instant controversy.
Appellee has cited a number of cases in further support of her contention. We do not think it necessary to review these cases. It is sufficient in this connection to paraphrase a sentence from the Federal Crude Oil Company Case: A careful examination of these cases reveals the fact that the question of revival of the right of the corporation to use the courts as to causes of action accruing before the forfeiture was not involved, nor was it necessary to a decision of the cáse.
Both motions are overruled.
Overruled.