This suit wаs instituted by the Geiser Manufacturing Company and was to recover upon а promissory note executed by H. A. Gray, the defendant in the action. The defendant interposed a special exception to the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s petition challenging the plaintiff’s right to institute and maintain this suit withоut an allegation in its petition that it had complied with article 745, Sayles’ Texas Civil Statutes, regulating the right of a foreign corporation to do business in this Stаte. The trial court sustained this exception, and the plaintiff declining to аmend, the court dismissed the cause and the plaintiff has appealеd.
*619 The allegations of the petition pertinent to the point thus raised are as follows: “The plaintiff is a corporation duly incorporatеd under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Pennsylvania, having its domicile and trаnsacting its business in the city of Waynesboro, County of Franklin, State of Pennsylvania, аnd is now and was on all the days and dates herein mentioned doing business in said Statе of Pennsylvania, its business being the manufacture, sale and distribution of machinery аt and within said city, county and State of its domicile, manufacturing the same for, and selling and distributing the same to, its customers throughout the United States of America in the manner aforesaid. That the defendant is an individual person and a nonrеsident of the State of Texas, being a resident of the State of Kentucky. . . . That heretofore, to wit, on the 10th day of January, 1908, for a valuable consideration the defendant made, executed and delivered to it his certain promissory note for the sum of six hundred and twenty-five dollars ($625), bearing date of the day and year last aforesaid, payable to the order of plaintiff,” etc.
The article of the . statute invoked reads: “Hereafter any сor- - poration for pecuniary profit, except as hereinafter provided, organized or created under the laws of any other Stаte or of any Territory of the United States, or of any municipality of such State or Territory, or of any foreign government, sovereignty or municipality, desiring to transact business in this State, or solicit business in this State, or establish a general or special office in this State, shall be and the same is hereby requirеd to file with the Secretary of State a duly certified copy of its articles of incorporation, and thereupon the Secretary of State shall issue to such corporation a permit to transact business in this Stаte,” etc. The succeeding article declares that no such corporation can maintain any suit or action in any of the courts of this State, unless at the time such cause of action arose the corрoratioh had filed its articles of incorporation as required by law.
There is nothing in the statute, however, which forbids a foreign corporation such privilege merely because it is a foreign corporation, but as will be seen from the above quotation the prohibition applies only to those foreign corporations “desiring to transact business in this State, or sоlicit business in this State, or establish a general or special office - in this Stаte;” and even here, if the business involved is interstate business, by judicial interpretаtion the article has no application. There is nothing in the petitiоn of appellant to show that it comes within the class of foreign cоrporations thus forbidden to prosecute suits in the courts of this State. Allen v. Tyson-Jones Buggy Co.,
For thе error of the court in sustaining appellee’s special excеption and in dismissing appellant’s petition, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for another trial.
Reversed and remanded.