" (Our italics.) In Bradford v. Indiana Harbor Belt R. Co. (1927), (C.C.A.), 16 F.2d 836, it was contended that the defendant, an Indiana corporation, had not complied with the Illinois law relating to foreign corporations. The court, in answer to this contention, said: "Under the Illinois law, a foreign corporation, failing to qualify to do business within the state, is subject to two penalties: (a) It may be fined; (b) it may not maintain a suit in the Illinois state courts.
iness was transacted was nonenforceable in the courts of the State that adopted the constitution and enacted the statute. In David Lupton's Sons v. Auto Club, 225 U.S. 489, 32 S. Ct. 711, 56 L. Ed. 1177, Ann. Cas. 1914a, 699, the plaintiff's claim was based on transactions pursuant to contract performed in the State of New York. It was a foreign corporation and had not complied with the State's statute, which denied it the right to maintain an action in the State because of its noncompliance. It was held that the plaintiff could maintain its action in the Federal court, that the statute not having struck down the obligation itself and declared it absolutely void, the State was without power to declare when a right of action was or was not maintainable in any other court. Cases maintaining the rule in this and other circuits are, Blodgett v. Lanyon Zinc Co., 120 F. 893; Boatmen's Bank v. Fritzlen, 221 F. 154; Ockenfels v. Boyd, 297 F. 614; Johnson v. New York Breweries Co., 178 F. 513; Bradford v. Ind. Harbor Belt R. Co., 16 F.2d 836. We have taken the point as counsel put it — liability upon an express contract of shipment made with a foreign corporation, though a bill of lading is not a requisite to the liability of the carrier as an insurer, which the law raises; but in that case the plaintiff must show actual delivery and loss.
It is quite apparent from the decisions of the Supreme Court, as well as various courts of appeal, that, while the remedy by a bill of discovery has not been abolished, it may be used only in exceptional cases in the present practice since the enactment of section 724 U.S. Rev. St. ( 28 USCA § 636). In Bradford v. Indiana Harbor Belt R. Co., 300 F. 78, 80, the Circuit Court of Appeals in its opinion said: "The bill in equity for discovery in aid or defense of actions at law has fallen quite into disuse, since section 724 U.S. Rev. St. [ 28 USCA § 636], became effective." The court quoted the Supreme Court in Carpenter v. Winn, 221 U.S. 533, 31 S. Ct. 683, 55 L. Ed. 842, where it was said that "the purpose of the provision [i.e. section 724 (28 USCA § 724)] is to provide a substitute for a bill of discovery in aid of a legal action."
( Riley v. Bondi (8th Cir., 1933) 64 F.2d 515.) On occasion it has been misinterpreted as in Bradford v. Harbor Belt R.R. Co. (7th Cir., 1927), 16 F.2d 836 wherein the court held that despite the explicit language in Ryerson and prior cases, contracts of unqualified foreign corporations are not void but merely voidable, at least at the choice of the other party. In 1933 the statutes were again changed and the 1919 acts were repealed in favor of the Business Corporation Act. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1969, ch. 32, pars. 157.1-157.167.)