Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

140 Mo. App. 442

Cooper Wagon & Buggy Co. v. Cornell

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided January 3, 1910

Missouri Court of Appeals · decided 1910-01-03

— Eon. B. G. Thurman, Judge. It is beld that, though plaintiff alleges that it is a foreign corporation and does not allege compliance by it with the laws of this State to entitle it to make contracts and enforce them in the courts of this State, compliance with the laws of this State will be presumed. And failure to comply is purely a matter of defense and must be pleaded in answer and not by demurrer.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently January 1981

1 federal appellate ·

Relies on United Shoe Machinery Co. v. Ramlose

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Eeversed and remanded · Decided 1910-01-03

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

OOX, J.

¶1The petition in this case alleges that plaintiff is a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Iowa, but makes no statement as to whether or not it has complied with the laws of this State relating to foreign corporations. The petition then declares upon two promissory notes alleged to have been exe*443cuted by defendant. To this petition the defendant demurred upon the ground that it did not show that plaintiff had capacity to sue and that it did not state a cause of action. This demurrer was sustained and plaintiff has appealed.

¶2As the cause of action stated was in proper form, the court must have sustained the demurrer to this petition upon the ground that it did not state that plaintiff had complied with the laws of this State authorizing foreign corporations to do business in this State. It is true that a foreign corporation who has not complied with the laws of this State cannot maintain an action in the courts of this State, but this is a matter of defense, and to be available, must be pleaded by the defendant; hence, it is not necessary for plaintiff to allege in its petition that it had complied with the provisions of our statutes in relation to foreign corporations, and a demurrer ought not to be sustained for that reason. [Scientific American Club v. Horchitz, 128 Mo. App. l. c. 579, 106 S. W. 1117; Parlin & Orendorf Co. v. Boatman, 84 Mo. App. l. c. 72; The American Insurance Co. v. Smith, 73 Mo. l. c. 371; United Shoe Machinery Co. v. Ramlose, 210 Mo. 631, 109 S. W. 567.]

¶3The action of the court in sustaining this demurrer was error. The judgment is, therefore, reversed and the cause remanded.

All concur.
/140/moapp/442 · .json · Public domain