Beard v. Union & American Publishing Co.
Ala.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2023Ex parte Honda Manufacturing and Development of Alabama, LLC PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS Ala. Civ. App.
- 2015Graphic Packaging Corporation v. Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas And Ken Paxton, Attorney General of the State of Texas Tex. App.
- 2002Brown v. Pool Depot, Inc. Ala.
- 1997State Department of Revenue v. Sonat, Inc. Ala. Civ. App.
- 1989Sanwa Business Credit Corp. v. G.B. "Boots" Smith Corp. Ala.
- 1982Meeks v. Ford Motor Co. Ala.
- 1972Computaflor Co. v. N. L. Blaum Construction Co. Ala.
- 1947Harrub v. Hy-Trous Corp. Ala.
- 1946J. R. Watkins Co. v. Hamilton Ala. Ct. App.
- 1942Royal Ins. v. All States Theatres, Inc. Ala.
Cites 2 casesshowing 1
- Bowen v. Snell
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
Beard v. The Union & American Publishing Company.
Attorneys
- HaRvill & DicKENSON, for appellants.
- RobiNSON & BeowN, contra.
Section 4, Article 14, of the constitution has no bearing on the question raised in this case. Receiving subscriptions to a newspaper, or collecting the money therefor, although the paper is published in another State, and by a corporation, is not doing “business” in this State, within that section of the constitution. There must be a doing of some of the works, or an exercise of some of the functions, for which the corporation was created, to bring the case within that clause. A railroad, bank, or insurance company, of foreign incorporation, performing its corporate functions within the limits of Alabama, would be required to keep “at least one known place of business, and an authorized agent or agents” in this State. That -would be doing business; the business, or a part of it, which falls directly within the purview of their corporate powers. The present case does not fall within the principle.
There is no plea of set-off in this record, and if there were such plea, the evidence fails to show any authority in the defendants to avail themselves of it.—Bowen v. Snell, 9 Ala. 481; S. C. 11 Ala. 379; Code of 1876, § 2994.
Affirmed.