Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Bain Peanut Co. of Tex. v. Pinson

Bain Peanut Co. of Tex. v. Pinson, 282 U.S. 499 (1931)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1931-02-24
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • law establishing more extensive venue for actions against corporations than that fixed for private citizens found constitutional as being "reasonable"
  • quoted with approval by this Court in Plantation Legal Defense Services, Inc. v. O’Brien, 121 R.I. 595, 597, 401 A.2d 1277, 1278 (1979)
  • "[t]he spirit of the constitution is as obligatory as the written word"
  • similar stat utes sustained elsewhere provide evidence of rationality

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Bain Peanut Co. of Tex. v. Pinson. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
157 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Federal Courts & Jurisdiction — Review of State Court Judgments A judgment of an intermediate state court upholding the constitutionality of a state statute, as to which the state supreme court dismissed an application for a writ of error "for want of jurisdiction," is reviewable by the Supreme Court where, under the local law, the effect though not the form of the supreme court's action was to affirm the intermediate court's judgment on the federal constitutional question. 282 U.S. at 500
  2. Constitutional Law — Equal Protection In determining whether a corporation is denied the equal protection of the laws because its creator established a more extensive venue for actions against it than is fixed for private citizens, the question is not whether there is a geometrical equation between a corporation and a natural person, but whether the difference works an injustice to the class generally, even though it may bear hard in some particular case. 282 U.S. at 501
  3. Constitutional Law — Equal Protection The Constitution does not forbid allowing one person to seek a forum from which another in the same class is excluded, provided the protection of fundamental rights by equal laws equally administered is enjoyed; the range of the State's discretion in such matters is large, and it is for the corporation asserting the discrimination to establish the injustice. 282 U.S. at 501
  4. Constitutional Law — Equal Protection A state law permitting suits against private corporations in any county in which the cause of action arose, while permitting suits against individuals in like cases only in the counties where they reside, is not repugnant to the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, because of the likely difference between the business done by a corporation and that done by a private person, which the State may take into account when it permits a corporation to be formed. 282 U.S. at 501
BAIN PEANUT CO.v. PINSON,282 U.S. 499(1931)
51 S.Ct. 228
BAIN PEANUT COMPANY OF TEXAS ET AL.v. PINSON ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT,
STATE OF TEXAS.
No. 49.
Argued January 12, 1931.
Decided February 24, 1931.
1. A judgment of an intermediate state court upholding the constitutionality of a state statute over objections based on the Federal Constitution, and as to which the Supreme Court of the State dismissed an application for a writ of error "for want of jurisdiction,"heldreviewable here, it appearing that, under the local law, the effect (though not the form) of the action of the Supreme Court was to affirm the judgment of the intermediate court on the constitutional question. P. 500. 2. A state law allowing suits to be brought against private corporations in any county in which the cause of action arose, but against individuals, in like cases, only in the counties where they reside,heldnot repugnant to the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. P. 501.19 S.W.2d 203, affirmed.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals, of
Texas, affirming recovery by Pinson and Guyger from the Peanut
Company in an action on a contract. For earlier phases of the
litigation see273 S.W. 655; 287id. 87; 292id. 204; and 294
id. 536. After the argument here, the appeal was ordered
dismissed for want of jurisdiction
Page 500
Seepost, p. 811. It now appearing from an explanatory
statement by the Supreme Court of Texas that its jurisdiction
over the constitutional question was in fact exercised, the
dismissal is set aside, but the judgment is affirmed upon the
merits.
Mr. B.G. Mansell, with whomMr. B.L. Agertonwas on the brief, for appellants.Messrs. Gib CallawayandMark Callawaysubmitted for appellees.
MR. JUSTICE HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Bain Peanut Company, a corporation of Texas, was sued in Comanche County of that State, being the county in which the cause of action arose. Its principal office was in Tarrant County, Texas. In due form it raised the question whether the statute of Texas (subdivision 24, Article 1830, R.S. 1911, now subdivision 23, Article 1995, R.S. 1925) that allowed suits against private corporations to be brought in any county in which the cause of action arose, was valid under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution when unincorporated individuals are assumed not to be "subject to suit outside their domiciliary counties in a similar situation." We understand the Supreme Court of the State to have upheld the constitutionality of the statute, although at first we were misled by the form of the order dismissing the application for a writ of error "for want of jurisdiction." A certificate from the Court executed since the question of our jurisdiction was before us satisfies us that the form was adopted in compliance with the Court's interpretation of a statute, and that while the Court was of opinion that the judgment sought to be brought up was correct in upholding the statute, yet, since it also regarded thePage 501opinion as incorrect in its declaration of the law, its duty was to adopt the above quoted form. The judgment below stood affirmed in fact against the fully stated objection of the appellant, and justice requires that the objection should be dealt with, although at first it seemed as if the Supreme Court was acting upon local grounds of procedure with which we have nothing to do, except when used as a cloak, which was not the case here.

Coming then to the merits, we are of opinion that the judgment was right. The interpretation of constitutional principles must not be too literal. We must remember that the machinery of government would not work if it were not allowed a little play in its joints. In deciding whether a corporation is denied the equal protection of the laws when its creator establishes a more extensive venue for actions against it than is fixed for private citizens, we have to consider, not a geometrical equation between a corporation and a man, but whether the difference does injustice to the class generally, even though it bear hard in some particular case, which is not alleged or proved here.Louisville Nashville R. Co. v.Barber Asphalt Paving Co.,197 U.S. 430,434.Patsonev.Pennsylvania,232 U.S. 138,144. This it is for the corporation to make out. The range of the State's discretion is large.Armour Co. v.North Dakota,240 U.S. 510,516,517. The question seems to be answered byCincinnati Street Ry. Co. v.Snell,193 U.S. 30,36,37, which lays down that, if the protection of fundamental rights by equal laws equally administered is enjoyed, the Constitution does not forbid allowing one person to seek a forum from which another in the same class is excluded. But without asserting a universal proposition, it is obvious that there is likely to be such a difference between the business done by a corporation and that done by a private person that the State well may take it into account when it permits a corporation to be formed. ThatPage 502the provision in question is reasonable is made more probable by the fact that it had been adopted and sustained not only in Texas but in other States.Grayburg Oil Co. v.Powell,118 Tex. 354[118 Tex. 354];Lewisv.South Pacific Coast R. Co.,66 Cal. 209;Cookv.W.S. Ray Mfg. Co.,159 Cal. 694;Central Georgia Power Co. v.Stubbs,141 Ga. 172;Begleyv.Mississippi Valley TrustCo., (Mo.)252 S.W. 84;Morrimac Veneer Co. v.McCalip,129 Miss. 671,683. We cannot say that it is not.Order dismissing appeal vacated and judgment affirmed.