American Case & Register Co. v. Griswold

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

American Case & Register Co. v. Griswold

143 A.D. 807, 128 N.Y.S. 206, 1911 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 930

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 8, 1911

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 143 A.D. 807 (American Case & Register Co. v. Griswold) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

American Case & Register Co. v. Griswold, 143 A.D. 807, 128 N.Y.S. 206, 1911 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 930 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

Kellogg, J. :

The twenty-five dollars was paid in this State, and was to be repaid in this State if the plaintiff, at Alliance, 0., did not accept [810]*810the contract. That part of the contract was clearly made in and to be performed in this State. ■ When the note was surrendered and the parties agreed “ to leave it as an open account,” the money was payable here. The plaintiff maintained, and operated in its name, an office at Albany, E. Y., and carried on its business in the territory named from that office, and by the personal canvass and solicitation of its general agent through the territory. The fact that the contract provides that it is subject to the acceptance of the company at Alliance, O., does not change its character from a Eew York State contract. In some cases such a provision might be of significance, but in this case the other facts are so conclusive that it is substantially unimportant.

Section 15 of the General Corporation Law, which prohibits a foreign stock corporation other than a moneyed corporation from doing business in this State without having first procured from the Secretary of State the necessary certificate, provides: “Eo foreign stock corporation doing business in this State shall maintain any action in this State upon any contract made by it in this State unless prior to the making of such contract it shall have procured such certificate.” The plaintiff and its contract are fairly within the terms of this statute. Plaintiff was, therefore, illegally doing business in this State and cannot maintain this action. It is unnecessary to consider the exception to the ruling excluding the evidence of the parol agreement with reference to the fidelity bond.

The judgment should be reversed upon the law and the facts and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

All concurred.

Judgment reversed on law and facts and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide event.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Kellogg, J. :

The twenty-five dollars was paid in this State, and was to be repaid in this State if the plaintiff, at Alliance, 0., did not accept [810]*810the contract. That part of the contract was clearly made in and to be performed in this State. ■ When the note was surrendered and the parties agreed “ to leave it as an open account,” the money was payable here. The plaintiff maintained, and operated in its name, an office at Albany, E. Y., and carried on its business in the territory named from that office, and by the personal canvass and solicitation of its general agent through the territory. The fact that the contract provides that it is subject to the acceptance of the company at Alliance, O., does not change its character from a Eew York State contract. In some cases such a provision might be of significance, but in this case the other facts are so conclusive that it is substantially unimportant.

Section 15 of the General Corporation Law, which prohibits a foreign stock corporation other than a moneyed corporation from doing business in this State without having first procured from the Secretary of State the necessary certificate, provides: “Eo foreign stock corporation doing business in this State shall maintain any action in this State upon any contract made by it in this State unless prior to the making of such contract it shall have procured such certificate.” The plaintiff and its contract are fairly within the terms of this statute. Plaintiff was, therefore, illegally doing business in this State and cannot maintain this action. It is unnecessary to consider the exception to the ruling excluding the evidence of the parol agreement with reference to the fidelity bond.

The judgment should be reversed upon the law and the facts and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

All concurred.

Judgment reversed on law and facts and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

143 A.D. 807, 128 N.Y.S. 206, 1911 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 930, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-case-register-co-v-griswold-nyappdiv-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack