Caron v. Seidenbach's

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Caron v. Seidenbach's

124 Misc. 34, 207 N.Y.S. 180, 1923 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1477

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedDecember 20, 1923

StatusPublished

This text of 124 Misc. 34 (Caron v. Seidenbach's) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Caron v. Seidenbach's, 124 Misc. 34, 207 N.Y.S. 180, 1923 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1477 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

It appeared conclusively on the hearing by the testimony of defendant’s president that the corporation is organized under the laws of Oklahoma, is engaged in the retail business in the city of Tulsa in that State and has no other place of business and is not doing business in New York.

Respondents seek to sustain the order on the plea that defendant did not adequately prove the facts hereinabove recited, but they were testified to by defendant’s president as of his own knowledge without any suggestion of an objection to the form of the questions or the answers. There was no cross-examination, and plaintiff did not undertake to offer any proof to the contrary.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and motion granted, with ten dollars costs

All concur; present, Guy, Buur and Delehanty, JJ.

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

Per Curiam:

It appeared conclusively on the hearing by the testimony of defendant’s president that the corporation is organized under the laws of Oklahoma, is engaged in the retail business in the city of Tulsa in that State and has no other place of business and is not doing business in New York.

Respondents seek to sustain the order on the plea that defendant did not adequately prove the facts hereinabove recited, but they were testified to by defendant’s president as of his own knowledge without any suggestion of an objection to the form of the questions or the answers. There was no cross-examination, and plaintiff did not undertake to offer any proof to the contrary.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and motion granted, with ten dollars costs

All concur; present, Guy, Buur and Delehanty, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 Misc. 34, 207 N.Y.S. 180, 1923 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1477, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/caron-v-seidenbachs-nyappterm-1923.