Court Opinion

ID: 9812858
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:50:56.496327+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:27:03.680413
License: Public Domain

Olauk, O. J.,
dissenting: The defendant, a foreign corporation, was doing business in this State in violation of our laws. It is true that the $500 penalty prescribed for such violation (Revisal, sec. 1194) cannot be sued for by the plaintiff, and that a quo warranto could be brought only by the Attor-*383uey-Geueral or by bis permission. If it further be conceded that the'plaintiff had only recently been incorporated and had done no business when this action was brought, still it avers that it is prepared to do business and that the defendant is illegally doing business here, and, by using the same name with the plaintiff, will interfere with and injure its business. Under these circumstances it would seem clear that the legal corporation is entitled to the injunctive process of the court to protect it from interference by another corporation doing business here under the same name in violation of our laws.