St. Mary's Franco-American Petroleum Company v. West Virginia/Opinion of the Court

It is argued that the act of February 22, 1905, is invalid under the 14th Amendment, in that it deprives the company of liberty of contract and property without due process of law, and denies it the equal protection of the laws. But, in view of repeated decisions of this court, the contention is without merit. The state had the clear right to regulate its own creations, and a fortiori, foreign corporations permitted to transact business within its borders.

In this instance it put all nonresident demestic corporations, which elected to have their places of business and works outside of the state, and all foreign corporations coming into the state, on the same footing in respect of the service of process, and the law operated on all these alike.

Such a classification was reasonable, and not open to constitutional objection. Orient Ins. Co. v. Daggs, 172 U.S. 557, 563, 43 L. ed. 552, 554, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 281; Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 177 U.S. 43, 44 L. ed. 663, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 518; Central Loan & T. Co. v. Campbell Commission Co. 173 U.S. 84, 43 L. ed. 623, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 346; National Council, J. O. U. A. M. v. State Council of Virginia, 203 U.S. 151, 51 L. ed. 132, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 46; Northwestern Nat. L. Ins. Co. v. Riggs, 203 U.S. 243, 51 L. ed. 168, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 126; Brannon, 14th Amendment, chap. 16.

It is true that the prior law left it to the corporation to appoint an attorney to represent it, and that the act of February, 1905, changed this so as to make the auditor such attorney, but this, at the most, was no more than an amendment as to the appointment of an agent, and when the St. Mary's Company accepted its charter it did so subject to the right of amendment. And we agree with the state court that the requirement of the payment of $10 to the auditor for the use of the state does not amount to a taking of property without due process, or an unjust discrimination. Charlotte, C. & A. R. Co. v. Gibbes, 142 U.S. 386, 35 L. ed. 1051, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 255; New York ex rel. New York Electric Lines Co. v. Squire, 145 U.S. 175, 36 L. ed. 666, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 880. If the act is valid, that is.

The objections going to the expediency or the hardships and injustice of the act, and its alleged inconsistency with the state Constitution and laws, are matters with which we have nothing to do on this writ of error, and the question whether the provision that the corporation shall not be required to pay any fee to anyone theretofore appointed an attorney is invalid or not requires no consideration on this record.

Judgment affirmed.