Silva v. Crombie & Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 13 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ * * * The service upon the secretary of state was effective to all intents and purposes as if made upon the president or head officers of the corporation. If the Legislature had desired to make the service effective only when' the secretary of state had notified such corporation, it could have so stated in plain language. Such language is discernible in the case of insurance companies. Comp.St.1929, § 73-114. The neglect of the secretary of state is not chargeable to the appellant. The Legislature chose its terms with discrimination, and made it plain that the service of process on the secretary of state is the effective service, not the notice by the secretary of state to the foreign corporation that renders it effective. ****=(=* “It appears to us that this question has been settled by the United States Supreme Court, in the case of State of Washington ex rel. Bond & Goodwin & Tucker, Inc. v. Superior Court of State of Washington for Spokane County et al., 289 U.S. 361 , 53 S.Ct. 624, 626 , 77 L.Ed. 1256 , 89 A.L.R. 653 . “As said by the annotator in 89 A.L.R. 664 : ‘The question of the constitutionality of statutes providing for service upon foreign corporations through statutory agents, where no provision is made in the statute for communication of notice to the corporation, would seem to have been finally set at rest by the decision in the reported case (State (of Washington) ex rel. Bond & Goodwin & Tucker v. Superior Ct., 289 U.S. 361 , 53 S.Ct. 624 , 77 L.Ed. 1256 ,”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Barrie-Peter Pan Schools, Inc. v. Cudmore · Postal Ben. Ins. Co. v. Johnson

2. ““ ‘The state need not have admitted the corporation to do business within its borders. Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 13 Pet. 519 , 10 L. Ed. 274 ; Lafayette Ins. Co. v. French, 18 How. 404, 407 , 15 L. Ed. 451, 452 . Admission might be conditioned upon the requirement of substituted service upon a person to be designated either by the corporation, St. Clair v. Cox, 106 U. S. 350 , 356, 1 S. Ct. 354 , 27 L. Ed. 222 [225] or by the state itself, Mutual Reserve Fund Life Asso. v. Phelps, 190 U. S. 147, 158 , 23 S. Ct. 707 , 47 L. Ed. 987 [994], or might, as here, be upon the terms that if the corporation had failed to appoint or maintain an agent, service should be made upon a state officer. American R. Exp. Co. v. F. S. Royster Guano Co., 273 U. S. 274, 280 , 47 S. Ct. 355 , 71 L. Ed. 642 [643], The provision that the liability thus to be served should continue after withdrawal from the state afforded a lawful and constitutional protection of persons who had there transacted business with the appellant. American R. Exp. Co. v. Kentucky, 273 U. S. 269, 274 , 47 S. Ct. 353 , 71 L. Ed. 639 [642]. “ Tt has repeatedly been said that qualification of a foreign corporation in accordance with the statutes permitting its entry into the state constitutes an assent on its part to all the reasonable conditions imposed. Lafayette Ins. Co. v. French, supra, 18 How. [404] 408, 15 L. Ed. 451 [453] ; St. Clair v. Cox, supra, 106 U. S. [350] 356, 1 S. Ct. 354 [ 27 L. Ed. 225 ] ; Connecticut Mut. L. ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Barrie-Peter Pan Schools, Inc. v. Cudmore