Court Opinion

ID: 9545461
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:13:00.649799+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:14:50.948542
License: Public Domain

SIMMS, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. This Canadian corporation is not a bona fide resident of Oklahoma. It is — -and always will be — an alien. Being domesticated to do business in Oklahoma does not change its legal residence.
It is useful to remember that corporations do not exist in nature. They are artificial beings which exist only by force of the laws of their creating jurisdiction.
Unlike a natural person, a corporation cannot change its domicile at will. It has no power to do so; it exists only by reason of the law of its origin. While it may transact business elsewhere, it cannot change its domicile. A corporation “must dwell in the place of its creation, and cannot migrate to another sovereignty.” 1 “A corporation cannot change its residence or its citizenship. It can have its legal home only at the place where it is located by or under the authority of its charter; but it may by its agents transact business anywhere, unless prohibited by its charter or excluded by local laws.”2 By doing business away from their legal residence, corporations do not change their citizenship, but simply extend the field of their operations. They reside at home, but do business abroad.”3 See, e. g., Shaw v. Quincy, 145 U.S. 444, 12 S.Ct. 935, 36 L.Ed. 768 (1892); Cream of Wheat Co. v. Grand Forks County, 253 U.S. 325, 40 S.Ct. 558, 64 L.Ed. 931 (1919); Seaboard Rice Milling Co. v. Chicago, R.I. & P.R. Co., 270 U.S. 363, 46 S.Ct. 247, 70 L.Ed. 633 (1925); Johnson Oil Ref. Co. v. Oklahoma, 290 U.S. 158, 54 S.Ct. 152, 78 L.Ed. 238 (1933); First Bank Stock Corp. v. Minnesota, 301 U.S. 234, 57 S.Ct. 677, 81 L.Ed. 1061, 113 A.L.R. 228 (1936); Myatt v. Ponca City Land & Improvement Co., 14 Okl. 189, 78 P. 185, 194-197 (1903); 20 C.J.S. Corporations §§ 1794, et seq.; 36 Am.Jur.2d Foreign Corporations, §§ 32, et seq.
This entity, which was created by the laws of Canada, cannot be reshaped or extended by the Supreme Court of Oklahoma.
It is true that for certain purposes — primarily taxation — the law has recognized *1264that foreign corporations may have a “commercial domicile” or “business situs” apart from their legal residences. These decisions turn on policy considerations and often employ the use of legal fictions to support the desired result. See, e. g., First Bank Stock Corp. v. Minnesota, supra, 301 U.S. 234, 240-241, 57 S.Ct. 677, 679-80, 81 L.Ed. 1061; Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 56 S.Ct. 773, 80 L.Ed. 1143. See, also, Magna Oil & Refining Co. v. Uncle Sam Oil Co., 81 Okl. 8, 196 P. 142 (1921).
We do not have a policy decision to make here, nor are we concerned with anything but real and actual legal residence. The framers of the Oklahoma Constitution clearly and explicitly set forth the will of the people to be free of economic and political influence of aliens. The Constitution makes an alien who is not a bona fide resident of Oklahoma incapable of owning land. Is an alien corporation a bona fide resident merely because it is domesticated to do business here? The obvious answer is no. •
If the citizens of Oklahoma now wish to change their Constitution to allow alien land ownership, they may do so. It is not a proper function of this Court to do that for them. The majority’s warning about “sham” corporations is meaningless. Under its opinion, any alien who wants to own land in Oklahoma may now do so by merely forming a corporation and domesticating it here.
I respectfully submit the majority’s decision is unsupported by the law and logic.
I am authorized to state that Justice DOOLIN joins with me in this dissent.

.Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 13 Pet. 519, 10 L.Ed. 274, 308 (1839).

. Ex parte Schollenberger, 96 U.S. 369, 377, 24 L.Ed. 853 (1878).

. Baltimore & Ohio R.Co. v. Koontz, 104 U.S. 5, 11, 26 L.Ed. 643 (1881).