*1 OFFICE OFTHEATTORNEY GENERALOF TEXAS AUSTIN

eon. E. Harold Beak, February 3, 1939, p%&J8 2 Op8ratiVe", unleea orgrinlzeil pursuant to the provl- sione of Our Terse Aot, or nt least authorized to do business In this state, and though the wording ofthe Aot ie 8omewhat ambiguow, we belierre that ,for a par- mit to issuqthe foreign oorporatlon shall at lsast have been organized in oonformlty with th8 statutea 0r this atate. 'Ashaveoompareiitbe RuralEleotrlfS,- cation Statute of tikaneas with that of Texas, and find same to be identioel in alma& ev8rg rearpeot. iW take it that the Ieglslature desired~that the State OS Texas have Bone rrort OS ooa*Lrol oter such a oorpora- tlon doing buslnese If the Southwest Ark- inTeras. ansas Eleotrio Cooperative Corporation were parmlttsd to oame lx'and do bwineee In this state as a forei@ oorporatian without a permit, the Stat8 of Texas Would have only Xl&ted oontrol over such corporation. We thinkthat the Legialatu.reofT8xas by&m. 7 of Art. 152Sb sought to prevent auab a situation.

Mr. Sherrill raieee the question of ubeth8r Se&ion 7 of ouip AOt pzohlbits the sOUthW8St ASkiumaa r;ytp, Cooperative Co tion firm doing business

. We dP not be1 eve that the Legislatiire in- "f"" tended that It go that far, It ie our opinica.that Southwest Arkansas Eleotrlo~Ooop8nMve Corporation the may oorae into Texae aad serve the oitieew of thicr irtate, after it has ssoureda pcirmitfromthe Seorefaryof State of Taxas to do bUsioe6s in'tbls state,

Tours very truly ATTORNEY 0lCRBU.L OF TELAs