Brooks Clothing of California, Ltd. v. Flynn

232 A.D. 346, 250 N.Y.S. 69, 1931 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13806
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 13, 1931
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 232 A.D. 346 (Brooks Clothing of California, Ltd. v. Flynn) 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
Brooks Clothing of California, Ltd. v. Flynn, 232 A.D. 346, 250 N.Y.S. 69, 1931 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13806 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1931).

Opinion

Van Kirk, P. J.

This matter was presented to the Special Term and decided solely on the ground of similitude of corporate names under the General Corporation Law. In such case a peremptory mandamus order was not the proper remedy. Section 9 provides: “No certificate of incorporation of a proposed domestic corporation, and no statement and designation of a foreign corporation, having the same name as a corporation authorized to do business under the laws of this State or a name so nearly resembling it as to be calculated to deceive, shall be filed or recorded in any office for the purpose of effecting its incorporation, or of authorizing it to do business in this State; * * The duty of the Secretary of State under this section is not a ministerial duty alone; it requires a determination of a question of fact and the exercise of judicial discretion.

[348]*348The primary object of a mandamus order is to compel action, not the manner of acting. It is never granted to compel the discharge of a duty involving the exercise of judgment or discretion. A public officer may be compelled to determine the fact, but not to determine it in a particular way. (People ex rel. Harris v. Commissioners, 149 N. Y. 26.) In this view of the proceeding the order at Special Term should be reversed. But there was a fact stated in the petition, not denied, which presents a valid ground for the order. Brooks Clothes, Inc., was not an organized corporation for lawful business purposes at the time the petitioner applied to the Secretary of State to file its papers. The Stock Corporation Law, section 5, provides: “Three or more persons may become a stock corporation for any lawful business purpose or purposes * * * by making, subscribing, acknowledging and filing a certificate * * Section 8 of the General Corporation Law (former § 5, as renum. and amd. by Laws of 1929, chap. 650)

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

Related

Jervis Corp. v. Secretary of State
43 Misc. 2d 185 (New York Supreme Court, 1964)
Kiamesha Development Corp. v. Guild Properties, Inc.
151 N.E.2d 214 (New York Court of Appeals, 1958)
Horowitz v. Beamish
185 A. 760 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1936)
Horowitz v. Beamish
22 Pa. D. & C. 545 (Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas, 1935)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
232 A.D. 346, 250 N.Y.S. 69, 1931 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13806, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brooks-clothing-of-california-ltd-v-flynn-nyappdiv-1931.