N.M. Stat. » Chapter 53 — Corporations
New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 53-17-2 (2026)

Powers of foreign corporation

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A foreign corporation which has received a certificate of authority under the Business Corporation Act shall, until a certificate of revocation or of withdrawal, has been issued as provided in the Business Corporation Act, enjoy the same, but no greater, rights and privileges as a domestic corporation organized for the purposes set forth in the application pursuant to which the certificate of authority is issued; and, except as otherwise provided in the Business Corporation Act, is subject to the same duties, restrictions, penalties and liabilities now or hereafter imposed upon a domestic corporation of like character.

History: 1953 Comp., § 51-30-2, enacted by Laws 1967, ch. 81, § 104.

ANNOTATIONS

Compiler's notes. — This section is derived from Section 107 of the ABA Model Business Corporation Act.

Solicitation not transaction of business. — Where court construes previous decisions to hold that mere solicitation of a contract in this state by an agent, to be accepted at a home office in a foreign state, amounts to the transaction of business and that any action thereon is barred, the court errs. Vernon Co. v. Reed, 1967-NMSC-261, 78 N.M. 554, 434 P.2d 376 (decided under former law).

Foreign public utility has power of eminent domain. — Under 62-1-1 and 62-1-4 NMSA 1978, a foreign public utility authorized to do business in this state has the same right as a domestic public utility to exercise the power of eminent domain in this state. El Paso Elec. Co. v. Real Estate Mart, Inc., 1979-NMSC-023, 92 N.M. 581, 592 P.2d 181. See now 62-1-1.1 NMSA 1978 (decided under prior law).

The Business Corporation Act does not compel a foreign corporation to consent to general personal jurisdiction. — In consolidated interlocutory appeals where the district court denied petitioners' motions to dismiss claims against them for lack of general or specific personal jurisdiction, and where the court of appeals concluded that general personal jurisdiction was proper over petitioners, four foreign corporations, all of whom are manufacturers of automobiles or automobile components and registered to transact business under New Mexico's Business Corporation Act (BCA), §§ 53-17-1 through 53-17-20 NMSA 1978, the New Mexico supreme court reversed the court of appeals because any legislative intent to require a foreign corporation to consent to general personal jurisdiction should be clearly, unequivocally, and unambiguously expressed in the statutory text, and the language of the BCA relating to a foreign corporation's equal rights and responsibilities under New Mexico law does not clearly, unequivocally, and unambiguously express an intent to require a foreign corporation to consent to general personal jurisdiction in New Mexico. Chavez v. Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC, 2022-NMSC-006, rev'g 2019-NMCA-023, 458 P.3d 569; A-1-CA-36442, mem. op. (Ct. App. Dec. 21, 2018) (nonprecedential); A-1-CA- 35910, mem. op. (Ct. App. Dec. 21, 2018) (nonprecedential); and A-1-CA-37818 (Ct. App. Jan 18, 2019), and overruling Werner v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 1993-NMCA-112, 116 N.M. 229, 861 P.2d 270.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1979–2021 · leading case: Chavez v. Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC, 2022 NMSC 006 (N.M. 2021).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Chavez v. Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC, 2022 NMSC 006 (N.M. 2021). · cites it 11× “The Court reasoned that Section 53-17-2, which “defines the power of a registered foreign corporation as the same but no greater than that of a domestic corporation,” reflected a legislative intent “to equalize foreign and domestic corporations operating within New Mexico with…”
El Paso Elec. Co. v. Real Est. Mart, Inc., 592 P.2d 181 (N.M. 1979). · cites it 11× “We hold that under § 53-17-2, N.M.S.A.1978 (formerly § 51-30-2, N.”
Navarrette Rodriguez v. Ford Motor Co., 458 P.3d 569 (N.M. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 5× “In its analysis, the Court construed Sections 53-17-2, -11, and -15 of the Act.”
Sunwest Bank of Albuquerque v. Nelson, 958 P.2d 740 (N.M. 1998). · cites it 2× “is inapposite, we need not address Sunwest's contention that our holding in that case conflicts with NMSA 1978, § 53-17-2 (1967) (stating that foreign corporations “enjoy the same, but no greater, rights and privileges as a domestic corporation”).”
Werner v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 861 P.2d 270 (N.M. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 6× “Thus, the legislative intent expressed in Section 53-17-2 appears to have been to equalize foreign and domestic corporations operating within New Mexico with respect to “rights and privileges,” as well as “duties, restrictions, penalties and liabilities.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.