Masonry Magazine May 1966 Page. 8
STOP, LOOK and READ
(Continued from page 7)
ligence in the performance of the contract by such foreign contractors; hence, the requirement in some instances that such contractor be qualified to do business in the foreign state or appoint the Secretary of State as the contractor's agent for service of legal process. The so-called "Long-Arm" statutes enacted in many states have reduced the need of this requirement, since the foreign contractor by virtue of this statute, submits himself to the jurisdiction of the local courts by his mere performance of work in the state.
It should be noted also that some of the states which demand a contractors' license, may require that such license be obtained prior to the submission of the bids. Such states are:
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Hawaii (except Federal Hwy.)
Indiana
Kentucky
Louisiana
Mississippi (public work Mississippi contractors)
Montana
Nevada
New Mexico
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
Virginia
In Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, New Mexico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and Wyoming, the state boards which issue contractors' licenses, meet only at stated times Failure, therefore, to apply in a timely manner for a contractors' license, could result in an otherwise responsible bid being rejected by the prime contractor for failure to produce such a license.
The question of the applicability of state regulations to contracts for performance on land either owned by or leased by the Federal overnment has caused some litigation in the past.
In 1965, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide this very question. In the case, the defendent-contractor whose bid for construction of Federal facilities (Air Force Base) at a place in Arkansas had been accepted by the United States, and who had begun work on the Federal project, was convicted by the Circuit Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas, of working as a contractor within the State of Arkansas without having obtained the license required by Arkansas law. The Supreme Court in Arkansas confirmed the conviction (State of Arkansas v. Leslie Miller, Inc., 225 Ark. 285, 281 S.W. 2nd 946 (1956).
On appeal by the contractor, the United State Supreme Court reversed the conviction (Leslie Miller, Inc., appellant v. State of Arkansas, appellee, 352 U. S. 187, 77 S. St. 257, 1 L. ed. 2nd 231 (1956).
The Court in reaching its decision reasoned that in view of the standards stated in the State licensing stat-
(Continued on page 24)
MASONRY. May, 1966