Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Business Organizations Law

Articles

Interstate commerce

Articles 1 - 9 of 9

Full-Text Articles in Law

Interstate Commerce Commission - Intrastate Rates, Edwin C. Goddard Jan 1918

Interstate Commerce Commission - Intrastate Rates, Edwin C. Goddard

Articles

The marvelous possibilities for collision between State and Nation involved in our dual form of government are nowhere better or more often exhibited than in commerce regulation. We have long been learning the definition of the commerce which the constitution gives Congress power to regulate. It is only recently that we are finding how this power reaches over into purely intrastate business done by a carrier also engaged in interstate commerce. That nearly all rail carriers are now engaged in such business, even when their lines are wholly intrastate, has been often illustrated under the Second Employer's Liability Act. In …


Interstate Commerce And State Control Over Foreign Corporations, Ralph W. Aigler Jan 1914

Interstate Commerce And State Control Over Foreign Corporations, Ralph W. Aigler

Articles

Since Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 13 Pet. 519, there seems to have been no real occasion to doubt the power of a state totally to exclude foreign corporations seeking to engage in intrastate business only. The power to exclude being absolute, there has been no question as to the right of the state to allow the entrance of the foreign corporation for such business upon terms, and the terms may be of any sort, reasonable or unreasonable, except that the corporation seeking to enter cannot as a condition precedent to such entry be required to surrender a right or …


The Passing Of State Control Over Railway Rates, Edson R. Sunderland Jan 1911

The Passing Of State Control Over Railway Rates, Edson R. Sunderland

Articles

Congress has exclusive power to regulate interstate commerce, so far as it admits of a uniform system of regulation, and a failure on its part to regulate in a given case is tantamount to a declaration that such commerce shall remain free and unrestricted. Brown v. Houston, 114 U. S. 622; Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U. S. 100. The states are, in all such cases, without jurisdiction to regulate, irrespective of what Congress has or has not done.


What Is Interstate Commerce?, Horace Lafayette Wilgus Jan 1910

What Is Interstate Commerce?, Horace Lafayette Wilgus

Articles

In the case of International Text-book Company v. Pigg, Advance Sheets May 1, 1910 (30 Sup. Ct. 481) the Supreme Court of the United States, decided April 4, 1910, that a "corporation engaged in imparting instruction by correspondence, whose business involves the solicitation of students in other states by local agents, who are to collect and forward to the home office the tuition fees, and the systematic intercourse between the corporation and its scholars and agents, wherever situated, and the transportation of the needful books, apparatus, and papers," is engaged in interstate commerce, and a state statute which makes the …


State Regulations Affecting Interstate Commerce, Horace Lafayette Wilgus Jan 1910

State Regulations Affecting Interstate Commerce, Horace Lafayette Wilgus

Articles

The line between regulations of intrastate and interstate commerce is difficult to draw and hard to maintain. This is well illustrated in the recent case of St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company v. Arkansas, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States April 4, 1910, Advance Sheets, May I, 1910, p. 476, 30 Sup.Ct. 476.


Interstate Commerce And State Control Of Foreign Corporations, Ralph W. Aigler Jan 1910

Interstate Commerce And State Control Of Foreign Corporations, Ralph W. Aigler

Articles

Corporations are the creatures of their parent state and outside the borders of the state creating them they have no existence except such as is granted them by comity. Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 13 Pet. 519; Lafayette Ins. Co. v. French, 18 How. 404; Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168; Ducat v. Chicago, 10 Wall. 410; Liverpool Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 10 Wall, 566; Home Ins. Co. v. Morse, 20 Wall. 445; Horn Silver Mining Co. v. New York, 143 U. S. 305; Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 177 U. S. 28; Security Mut. L. I. Co. v. Prewitt, …


Federal License Or National Incorporation, Horace Lafayette Wilgus Jan 1905

Federal License Or National Incorporation, Horace Lafayette Wilgus

Articles

The message of President Roosevelt and the Report of Mr. Garfield as Commissioner of Corporations, if we are not mistaken, have done, or will do, more than all the discussion of the past several years to clear the vision of the people as to what is necessary and possible to do in the way of meeting and overcoming our industrial and commercial corporation difficulties.


Need Of A National Incorporation Law, Horace Lafayette Wilgus Jan 1904

Need Of A National Incorporation Law, Horace Lafayette Wilgus

Articles

When the report of the Committee on Uniformity of legislation was submitted to the last American Bar Association, and consideration of the legal problems growing out of modem commercial combinations, was urged as a matter proper for discussion and action by that association, it was gravely argued by distinguished lawyers present that there was no legal problem to be solved. The Committee on Commercial Law, however, thought otherwise and said:- "The American people look to the American Bar for leadership on this question. Some one must lead. If not the lawyer, then it will be the demagogue."


The Northern Securities Decision, Horace Lafayette Wilgus Jan 1904

The Northern Securities Decision, Horace Lafayette Wilgus

Articles

March 14 the Supreme Court of the United States decided one of the most important cases that has been before it for a number of years. The litigation referred to is the Northern Securities case. The question involved was whether the control of the Great Northern and Northern Pacific railway companies through the ownership of the majority of the stock of each of those companies by the Securities company violated the national anti-trust act. The majority of the Supreme Court held it did, but four of the judges dissented.