Ames v. Senco Products, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ames v. Senco Products, Inc.

1 A.D.2d 658, 146 N.Y.S.2d 298, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3848

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

DecidedDecember 13, 1955

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 1 A.D.2d 658 (Ames v. Senco Products, Inc.) 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

Ames v. Senco Products, Inc., 1 A.D.2d 658, 146 N.Y.S.2d 298, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3848 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

Order vacating service of process on foreign corporation unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. While it is true that the limitation on service of process on foreign corporations has been lifted to a considerable extent by the United States Supreme Court in International Shoe Co. v. Washington (326 U. S. 310), the settled rule as to the extent or exercise of our jurisdiction in this State has not been changed. Moreover, there are policy considerations which suggest that any change should be effected by legislation rather than by judicial decision. In that way, circumstances affecting the convenience of commerce may be more generally considered. The statutes adopted would provide wider notice to those, “ not doing business within the state ” who, nevertheless, may have occasion to.enter the State for the purpose of making contracts here, or having them performed here. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Bastow, Botein and Rabin, JJ. [See post, p. 774.]

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

Order vacating service of process on foreign corporation unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. While it is true that the limitation on service of process on foreign corporations has been lifted to a considerable extent by the United States Supreme Court in International Shoe Co. v. Washington (326 U. S. 310), the settled rule as to the extent or exercise of our jurisdiction in this State has not been changed. Moreover, there are policy considerations which suggest that any change should be effected by legislation rather than by judicial decision. In that way, circumstances affecting the convenience of commerce may be more generally considered. The statutes adopted would provide wider notice to those, “ not doing business within the state ” who, nevertheless, may have occasion to.enter the State for the purpose of making contracts here, or having them performed here. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Bastow, Botein and Rabin, JJ. [See post, p. 774.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.D.2d 658, 146 N.Y.S.2d 298, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3848, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ames-v-senco-products-inc-nyappdiv-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack