Oklahoma Tool & Supply Co. v. Daniels

HALL, C. J. The appellant filed this suit in the district court of Wichita county, alleging that it was a corporation organized and doing business under the laws of the state of Oklahoma; that on or about December 16, 1018, it was granted a permit authorizing it to transact business in the state of Texas. The case was tried to the court without a jury. The suit was based upon a promissory note alleged to have been executed by C. U. Daniels and S. A. Springer. The court finds as a fact, that the plaintiff submitted no evidence showing its right to do business in Texas. Reference to the statement of facts shows the correctness of this finding. The rule is that a foreign corporation cannot maintain a suit in this state without both pleading and proving compliance with the requirements of R. S. 1925, arts. 1529, 1535, and 1536. First State Bank of Bangs v. Janellen Oil Co., 275 S. W. 210; Victor Refining Co. v. City National Bank of Commerce (Tex. Civ. App.) 263 S. W. 622. The court entered judgment that the appellant take nothing by its suit, and that the defendant Daniels be discharged with his costs. In S. R. Smythe Co. v. Fort Worth Glass & Sand Co., 142 S. W. 1157, 105 Tex. 8, the Supreme Court said that, in cases where a foreign corporation fails to show that it has obtained a permit, the judgment rendered should have been one of dismissal in the trial court, since the articles of the statute referred to above do not render the contract void, but only deny such a corporation the right to enforce it in the courts of this state. It therefore appears that the trial court erred in rendering judgment that the appellant take nothing. This is a question of fundamental error. We therefore reverse the judgment, and here render the judgment which should have been rendered there, that the plaintiff’s suit be dismissed. Prescott-Phoenix Oil & Gas Co. v. Gilliland Oil Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 241 S. W. 775; Bryan v. Bowser & Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 209 S. W. 189. Reversed and dismissed.