Case: ROACH, SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI, v. ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY
Abbreviation: Roach v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.
Decision Date: 1910-05-31
Docket Number: No. 151
Citation: 218 U.S. 159
Volume: 218
Reporter: United States Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: ROACH, SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI, v. ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY.
Judges: The Chief Justice concurs-in the result.
Pages: 159–160

Head Matter:
ROACH, SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI, v. ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY.
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI.
No. 151.
Argued April 14, 1910.
Decided May 31, 1910.
Decided on the authority of the preceding case.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
Mr. James T. Blair, with whom Mr. Elliott W. Major, Attorney General of the State of Missouri, and Mr. Charles G. Revelle were on the brief, for appellants.
Mr. M. A. Low, with whom Mr. E. C. Lindley was on the brief, for appellees in No. 150.
Mr. Gardiner Lathrop, with whom Mr. Robert Dunlap, Mr. Thomas R. Morrow and Mr. James P. Gilmore were on the brief, for appellee in No. 151.
Original docket title Swanger, Secretary of State, etc., v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company; on December 9, 1909, Roach, Secretary of State, was substituted as plaintiff in error.
See abstracts of arguments in .preceding case with which this was argued simultaneously.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Day
delivered the opinion of the court.
This case was argued at the same time with No. 150, and involves the validity of the statute of March 13, 1907. The case was also decided upon demurrer to the bill. The allegations of the bill and supplemental bill showed that the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company was within the State of Missouri in compliance with its laws; that it had acquired a large, amount of property therein; that, being a foreign corporation, it had removed suits from a State to the Federal court, and the company averred that for that reason its right to do business in the State of Missouri was about to be revoked by the action of the secretary of state. This case comes' within the principles just laid down in No. 150, arid the decree of the Circuit Court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
The Chief Justice concurs-in the result.