Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 15).pdf/79

 HART-PARR CO. v. ROBB-LAWRENCE CO. a0

Perce & Tenneson and Arthur B. Lee, for respondents.

{transactions of foreign corporations without compliance with sie conditions required to do business in a state are void, and n> scica.can be maintained thereon. Clark & Marshall, Private Corp. ase: Bank vy. Young, 37 Mo. 393; Cincinnati Health Association + Rosenthal, 55 Ill. 83, 8 Am. Rep. 626; McCanna v. Citizens Co. “Fed, 397; Seamens v. Temple Co., 105 Mich. 400, 55 Am. St. de. 431, 63 N. W. 408; Seamens v. Christian Bros. Mill. Co. is Minn, 205, 68 N. W. 1065; Aetna Ins. Co. v. Harvey. 11 Wis. 2: lowa Falls Mfg Co. v. Farrar, 104 N. W. 449.

Azer noncompliance has been alleged by the deiendant. burden is spn plaintiff to prove compliance, or facts that excuse it. Clark & Marshall Prov. Corporations, 2726-27; Washington Ins. Co. v. Chamberlain, 16 Gray, 165.

Where the statute forbids doing any business, one transaction Sas tlegal as many. 6 Thompson on Corporations, section 1937, jace 5317: Farrior v. Mortgage Company. $8 Ala. 275; Mullins t.American Freehold Company, &8 Ala. 269; Iowa Falls Mig. Co. v. Farrar, stspra,

Excercp, J. The defendant Robb-Lawrence Company is a p:ic warehouseman. duly licensed as such under chapter 141, fe: 1S, Laws 1901. The defendant Northern Trust Company is te serety on the former's bond as such warehouseman. The Hart- Pex Company. which we shall hereafter refer to as plaintiff. is a régn corporation. and has brought this action by leave of “t aomey general. in the name of the state, to recover for an ae breach of the warehouseman’s bond executed pursuant 1 the law mentioned by the two defendant corporations. The mse in substance, alleges that the plaintiff is entitled to the session of certain personal property valued at $2,900, which it r delivered to the Robb-Lawrence Company as a public
 * that said company had refused to deliver the pro

and had converted the same to its own use. The this appeal is the one whereby the defend-

because the plaintiff is a foreign in the amended answer as fol- pany, if it be a foreign d complaint, is entitled

S not complied with thiztéte. and par-

59

ary 1ey ect 2c-