Dayton Coal Iron Company v. Barton/Opinion of the Court

by George Shiras, Jr.

United States Supreme Court

183 U.S. 23

Dayton Coal Iron Company  v.  Barton

 Argued: March 7, 1901. --- Decided: October 21, 1901

The only question presented for our consideration in this record is the validity, under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, of the act of the legislature of the state of Tennessee prescribing that corporations and other persons issuing store orders in payment for labor shall redeem them in cash, and providing a legal remedy for bona fide holders of such orders.

In the case of Knoxville Iron Co. v. Harbison, in error to the supreme court of Tennessee, decided at the present term, 183 U.S. 13, ante, 1, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1, we affirmed the judgment of that court sustaining the constitutional validity of the state legislation in question, and the cause now before us is sufficiently disposed of by a reference to that case.

The only difference in the cases is that in the former the plaintiff in error was a domestic corporation of the state of Tennessee, while in the present the plaintiff in error is a foreign corporation. If that fact can be considered as a ground for a different conclusion, it would not help the present plaintiff in error, whose right, as a foreign corporation, to carry on business in the state of Tennessee, might be deemed subject to the condition of obeying the regulations prescribed in the legislation of the state. As was said in Orient Ins. Co. v. Daggs, 172 U.S. 557, 43 L. ed. 552, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 281, that 'which a state may do with corporations of its own creation it may do with foreign corporations admitted into the state. . . . The power of a state to impose conditions upon foreign corporations is certainly as extensive as the power over domestic corporations, and is fully explained in Hooper v. California, 155 U.S. 648, 39 L. ed. 297, 5 Inters. Com. Rep. 610, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 207.'

We do not care, however, to put our present decision upon the fact that the plaintiff in error is a foreign corporation, nor to be understood to intimate that state legislation, invalid as contrary to the Constitution of the United States, can be imposed as a condition upon the right of such a corporation to do business within the state. Home Co. v. Morse, 20 Wall. 445, 22 L. ed. 365; Blake v. McClung, 172 U.S. 239, 254, 43 L. ed. 432, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 165.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Tennessee is affirmed.

Mr. Justice Brewer and Mr. Justice Peckham dissent.

Notes