*1 Hanson & Company, Plaintiff, Willadsen v. Frank Respondents.* et al., Creason Defendants, Appeals. April 30, 1928. Juris-Cye *Corpus Corporations, 14aCJ, p. References: Pleading, p. 399, 31CJ, n. n.

Lavelock, Kirkpatrick, appellant. Garner & 'Clark for Company. L. E. Bates for Richmond Construction WILLIAMS, ecpiity suit in C.—This comes to us on appeal Ray county. from circuit brings court of Plaintiff suit a chattel to foreclose question except

No is made as to pleadings as hereinafter will appear. foreign shows corporation, evidence Missouri, Jo.seph, business iu some this time before suit instituted, sewer, city and had a contract in the SCof. year-. general which been about a working'

nature corporation, shown and grade draináge systems carrying ditches; build sewers and poiver buy water, retail, and had and sell at wholesale ma- chinery equipment neeéssary which was use the conduct of it lor which Avasiormccl. 'No license the business was obtained corporation to transact business Missouri. executed on the 24th purported to secure indebtedness evidenced notes. *2 day July, These notes Averedated the 23rd of 1925. The total by indebtedness, mortgage, ‡6500. as shown the mortgage was This day for July, Avas record on the 25th of filed 1925. in the recorder's county, at 9 office of Jackson Missouri o’clock A. M. On the 22nd 1925, plaintiff DaAvson, of and one a defendant AA'hodid appear trial, not the entered into contract a AvherebvDawson be- purchaser property Avhicli by came Avascovered the According president company, to the the of the contract between plaintiff and constituted the entire contract. This DaAvson contract days purchase of mortgage Avas two the executed before chattel Avas executed. into a

Dawson entered with Richmond contract the Construction Company property. for the of this sale This contract also was made mortgage attempted the foreclosed, before to be Avas The executed. machinery by mortgage, the loaded on cars covered Avas the at >St. shipment to for Richmond under sale to the the Richmond Company mortgage Construction also before the was executed. the, plaintiff The Avent the chancellor found dismissed, equity plaintiff’s in that there no bill and the bill was Avas trial, brings for a after unsuccessful motion new the here on appeal. case point by first is per-

The made the court in that erred mitting during the to defendant amend their answer the trial. point may by of place The made clear a be recital AAhattook by shoAvn the record.

During progress attorney the of trial asked the the defendant permission by alleging plaintiff to amend the ansAver that aaus a foreign corporation doing business in the State Avithout a license. that, amend court ruled the amendment Avould haA'e to “on attorney plaintiff It- did terms.” that stated the continuance, suggested by not a terms AA’ant of amendment the plaintiff were: trial if willing proceed . . Avit.h

“. Plaintiffs are to the the plaintiffs of .made, provided copy amendment is of the charter may part plaintiffs’ proof, be of meet introduced in evidence as the neAA'issues the amendment.” raised "We terms amendment Avas alloAved.

These Avere met and the his think did not dis- judge abuse under this state of record the the defense, and Avas cretion only and the amendment added another 1919, thus Avith- not violation of Statutes 1274, Revised discussing questions out waiver. the of holding urged in plaintiff that the court that

It next erred easy in “doing Missouri. This is not of solu plaintiff doing taken recites that it was business tion. Joseph. practically city of St. evidence shows that in the Joseph. power, in It been located had under year, plaintiff machinery. it is true an iso charter, deal in this While enough legal fall is not under term busi case lated 75, Linotype Hays, 182 230 S. (Parker Wear, v. W. v. ness” very the facts in this case are similar to the App. 113), still Mo. Fidelity Casualty Kelly Co., Co. v. Broom case Company was in Broom App. 305. The court that case held Again in Park Davis & Co. doing case of Supreme c. of the State 245 Mo. l. Court Mullet, said: transacting effect, plaintiff admits reply,

“The (secs. 3040, R. S. statute Missouri violation *3 City far branch officewas concerned as the of its Kansas so was, least, unlawful and it its business that extent follows (Zinc contrary policy by the statutes mentioned to State as declared Mining Co., Tri-State Amusement Co. v. Zinc Lead every which it Co., 192 contract into Amusement was void.” entered furtherance long busi- company time the We think in view of the it was in the furtherance of Joseph, ness in St. and its business and under the facts was point made additional disposes

What we have said finding unsupported judgment are evidence. law and the evidence, and are Frank, C., concurs. is affirmed. opinion by C., foregoing PER CURIAM:—The Williams, concur; JJ., adopted Arnold, opinion of court. Blancl Trimble, J., P. absent.

Gentry County Drainage District, v. Farmers Respondent.* Bank, Mechanics April Appeals.