Foreign corporations are sometimes by the legislation of a state made domestic corpora tions for certain purposes, as for jurisdic tion ; Baltimore & 0. R. Co. v. Harris, 12 Wall. (U. S.) 65, 20 L. Ed. 354 ; James v. R. Co., 46 Fed. 47; 'Memphis & C. R. Co. v. Alabama, 107 U. S. 581, 2 Sup. Ct. 432, 27 L. Ed. 518 ; and to determine when this is so is sometimes a matter of great difficulty; 6 Thomp. Corp. § 7891; but where, by the con current action of two states, a railroad com pany is chartered or consolidated for police and jurisdictional purposes, it is as a whole treated as a domestic corporation of each state ; id.; Ohio & M. R. Co. v. Wheeler, 1 Black (U. S.) 286, 17 L. Ed. 130 ; Burger v. R. Co., 22 Fed. 561; Central Trust Co. v. IL Co., 41 Fed. 551; State v. R. Co., 18 Md. 193 ; Sprague v. R. Co., 5 R. L 233 ; Baltimore & 0. R. Co. v. Harris, 12 Wall. (U. S.) 65, 20 L. Ed. 354; State v. R. Co., 25 Neb. 156, 41 N. W. 125, 2 L. R. A. 564; State v. R. Co., 25 Neb. 164, 41 N. W. 127. A state may impose such terms for the admission of foreign cor porations as it may deem best ; Cyclone Min. Co. v. Baker L. & P. Co., 165 Fed. 996 ; or may exclude them, and this power extends to a single one already within its jurisdiction, if the act does not deprive it of property without due process of law, and the mere right to extend its business Into a state is not property in this sense ; National Coun cil v. State Council, 203 U. S. 151, 27 Sup. Ct. 46, 51 L. Ed. 132. Such statutes do not con stitute a contract between the state and such foreign corporation which is impaired by subsequent legislation ; Connecticut Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Spratley, 172 U. S. 602, 19 Sup. Ct. 308, 43 L. Ed. 569. They do not avoid the contracts made in the state by un registered foreign corporations, but merely suspend civil remedies in that state ; suit may be brought in another state ; Allen v. Allegheny Co., 196 U. S. 458, 25 Sup. Ct. 311, 49 L. Ed. 551. The right of a state to pre vent foreign corporations from continuing to do business within its borders is a correlative of the right to exclude them therefrom, and as this power is plenary, the state, so long as no contract is impaired, may exercise it in consideration of acts done in another juris diction; Hammond Packing Co. v. Arkansas, 212 U. S. 322, 29 Sup. Ct. 370, 53 L. Ed. 530, 15 Ann. Cas. 645 ; Cable v. U. S. Life Ins. Co., 191 U. S. 288, 24 Sup. Ct. 74, 48 L. Ed. 188.
The right of federal control of interstate commerce results in certain restraints upon the power of the states to regulate and tax foreign corporations so far as their business is held to be foreign or interstate commerce within the meaning of the federal constitu tion. The only limitation, however, on the powers of a state to exclude or exact condi tions from a foreign corporation arises when the corporation is in the employ of the fed eral government ; Pembina Consol. Silver Min. & Mill. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 125 U. S. 181, 8 Sup. Ct. 737, 31 L. Ed. 650 ; Horn Sil ver Min. Co. v. New York, 143 U. S. 305, 12 Sup. Ct. 403, 36 L. Ed. 164; or its business is strictly commerce, interstate or foreign ; Pembina Consol. Min. & Mill. Co. v. Pennsyl vania, 125 U. S. 181, 8 Sup. Ct. 737, 31 L. Ed. 650 ; Butler Bros. Shoe Co. v. Rubber Co.,
156 Fed. 1, 84 C. C. A. 167. If empowered to engage in interstate commerce by its own state, it may carry on interstate commerce in every state in the Union ; Missouri, K. & T. Trust Co. v. Krumseig, 172 U. S. 351, 19 Sup. Ct. 179, 43 L. Ed. 474 ; Caldwell v. North Carolina, 187 U. S. 622, 23 Sup. Ct. 229, 47 L. Ed. 336. And corporations possess the same rights as citizens with respect to free dom from state regulation of interstate com merce ; La Moine Lumber & Trading Co. v. Kesterson, 171 Fed. 980; and a state law .requiring a foreign corporation to file a copy of its charter and pay a small fee as a condi tion of doing business in the state does not interfere unlawfully with interstate com merce; Diamond Glue Co. v. U. S. Glue Co., 187 U. S. 611, 23 Sup. Ct. 206, 47 L. Ed. 328. Such commerce receives the same protection when carried on by corporations or by In dividuals ; Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsyl vania, 141 U. S. 196, 5 826, 29 p. Ed. 158; and includes transportation ; Philadel phia -& H. R. Co. v. Penaylvania, 15 Wall. (1q. S.) 232, 21 L. Ed. 146 ; Bowman v. Ry. Co., 125 U. S. 465, 8 Sup. Ct. 1062, 31 L. Ed. 700 ; telegraph lines ; Leloup v. Port of Mobile, 127 U. S. 640, 8 Sup. Ct. 1383, 32 L. Ed. 311 (which are also Subject to federal regUlation under acts of congress authorizing their location under certain conditions, on post roads ; U. S. Rev. Stat. § 1977 ; Pensa cola Telegraph Co. v. Telegraph Co., 96 U. S. 11, 24 L. Ed. 708 ; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Texas, 106 U. S. 460, 26 L. Ed. 1067) ; the sale of merchandise by a corporation of one state whether made without the state or by com mercial travellers, to a resident of another ; Ware v. Shoe Co., 92 Ala. 145, 9 South. 136 ; Gunn v. Mach. Co., 57 Ark. 24, 20 S. W. 591, 18 L. R. A. 206, 38 Am. St. Rep. 223 ; the sale of patented or copyrighted articles or books ; Ex parte Robinson, 2 Biss. 309, Fed. Cas. No. 11,932 ; Grover & Baker Sewing Mach. Co. v. Butler, 53 Ind. 454, 21 Am. Rep. 00 ; the right to vend them anywhere with in the United States being secured by the con stitution and patent and copyright laws ; Const. U. S. art. 1, § 8 ; U. S. R. S. § 4884 ; but insurance is not commerce (q. v.), and corporations engaged in that business may be regulated ; Paul 'v. Virginia, 8 Wall. (U. S.) 168, 19 L. Ed. 357 (followed, after full consideration, in New York Life Ins. Co. v. Deer Lodge County, 231 U. S. 495, 34 Sup. Ci 167,' 58 L. Ed. -) ; State v. Root, 83 Wis. 667, 54 N. W. 33, 19 L. R. A. 271; Goldsmith v. Ins. Co., 62 Ga. 379 ; and business cannot be carried on in a state by a foreign corporation which has not complied with all the conditions imposed by the state as a prerequisite to doing busi ness within its limits ; New York Life Ins. Co. v. Cravens, 178 U. S. 389, 20 Sup. Ci 962, 44 L. Ed. 11I6; Conn. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Spratley, 172 U. S. 602, 19 Sup. Ct. 308, 43 L. Ed. 569 ; Orient Ins. Co. v. Daggs, 172 U. S. 557, 19 Sup. Ct. 281, 43 L. Ed. 552 ; Hooper v. California, 155 U. S. 648, 15 Sup. Ct. 207, 39 L. Ed. 297 ; Philadelphia Fire Ass'n v. New York, 119 U. S. 110, 7 Sup. Ct. 108, 30 L. Ed. 342 ; Cooper Mfg. Co. v. Fer guson, 113 U. S. 727, 5 Sup. Ct. 739, 28 L. Ed. 1137.