DAYTON COAL AND IRON COMPANY
v.
BARTON
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Supreme Court upheld a Tennessee law requiring corporations and other employers to redeem store orders (scrip) issued as payment for labor in cash, rejecting the challenge that the law violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court affirmed the constitutionality of the state legislation, finding that a state possesses equal authority to regulate foreign corporations doing business within its borders as it does domestic corporations, and the plaintiff's status as a foreign corporation did not provide a basis for invalidating the law.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Shiras,
after making the above statement, delivered the opinion of the court.
The only question presented for our consideration in this record is the validity, under the Fourteenth 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 The Knoxville Iron Company v. Samuel Harbison, in error to the Supreme Court of Tennessee, decided at the present term, 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 Insurance Co. v. Daggs, 172 U. S. 557, 566, 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.”
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 Ins. Co. v. Morse, 20 Wall. 445; Blake v. McClung, 172 U. S. 239, 254.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Tennessee is
Affirmed.
Mr. Justioe Brewer and Mr. Justice PecehaM dissented.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Henderson-Waits Lumber Co. v. Croft, 89 Fla. 119 (Fla. 1925)…mply justified by the exceptional conditions affected by the statute. See Prairie Pebble Phosphate Co. v. Silverman, 80 Fla. 541, 86 South. Rep. 508; Knoxville Iron Co. v. Harbison, 183 U. S. 13, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1; Dayton Coal & Iron Co. v. Barton, 183 U. S. 23, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 5; Keokee Consol. Coke Co. v. Kelly, 234 U. S. 224, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 856; Harbison v. Knoxville Iron Co., 103 Tenn. 421, 53 S. W. Rep. 955, 56 L. R. A. 316, 76 Am. St. Rep. 682; Atkins v. Grey Eagle Coal Co., 76 W. Va. 27, 84 S. E.…
-
Chicago v. McGUIRE, 219 U.S. 549 (U.S. 1911)
-
Old Wayne Mut. Life Ass'n of Indianapolis v. McDONOUGH, 204 U.S. 8 (U.S. 1907)
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hooper v. California, 155 U.S. 648 (U.S. 1895)
- Blake v. McCLUNG, 172 U.S. 239 (U.S. 1898)
- Orient Ins. Co. v. Daggs, 1899 U.S. LEXIS 2386 (U.S. 1869)
- Ins. Co. v. Morse, 20 Wall. 445 (U.S. 1874)