Munday v. Wisconsin Trust Co.
Headline: Wisconsin law upheld allowing the State to void land transfers to an out‑of‑state corporation that failed to register, making it harder for foreign companies to hold real property there.
Holding:
- Allows states to void property transfers to unregistered foreign corporations.
- Makes out‑of‑state companies register before buying or holding land in Wisconsin.
- Leaves validation of past transfers to state law changes, not the federal Constitution.
Summary
Background
In 1913 two deeds transferred Wisconsin land to the Realty Realization Company, a Maine corporation; the deeds were dated and delivered in Illinois. A Wisconsin court later declared those deeds void because the company had not complied with a state law requiring foreign corporations to file their charter and obtain permission before acquiring property. The original case began in March 1913; the company later obtained a license in October 1915, and the legislature amended the statute in 1917 to relieve some disabilities for earlier acquisitions.
Reasoning
The Court considered whether Wisconsin’s rule—making contracts affecting property void when a foreign corporation had not registered—violated the federal Constitution. The Court said the state law existed before the 1913 deeds, so the federal contract clause did not protect the transactions. It also held that a State may set conditions for foreign corporations to do business or hold land within its borders and that title to land is governed by the law of the place where the land sits. The lower court’s decision voiding the deeds was therefore affirmed.
Real world impact
The decision confirms that States can require out‑of‑state companies to register before they acquire or hold land and may void transfers that ignore those rules. Whether a later state law change validates past transfers is a matter for state law, not the federal Constitution. This ruling primarily affects foreign corporations, property buyers, and sellers doing cross‑border deals with state land rules.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?