E. H. Stafford Manufacturing Co. v. Newman

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

E. H. Stafford Manufacturing Co. v. Newman

75 Misc. 636, 133 N.Y.S. 1073

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMarch 15, 1912

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 75 Misc. 636 (E. H. Stafford Manufacturing Co. v. Newman) 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

E. H. Stafford Manufacturing Co. v. Newman, 75 Misc. 636, 133 N.Y.S. 1073 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Guy, J.

This action is brought to recover the value of goods sold and delivered.

The complaint alleges that the plaintiff is a foreign corporation, but neither the complaint nor the answer alleges that the plaintiff was doing business ■ in this State, or, that the goods were sold or delivered within the State.

' The contract sued on, to deliver goods “ f.o.b.” in Illinois, was an Illinois contract. See 35 Cyc. 174; Cahen v. Platt, 69 N. Y. 348. The learned trial judge dismissed the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff corporation was doing business within the State.and had not obtained a certificate as required by section 15 of the General Corporation Law. There was no evidence on which to base the finding, and the dismissal of the complaint was error. See Bremer v. Ring, [637]*637146 App. Div. 724; Singer Sewing Machine Co., v. Foster, 76 Misc. Rep. 641; Acorn Brass Mfg. Co. v. Rutenberg, 147 App. Div. 533.

Seabury and Bijltr, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.

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

Guy, J.

This action is brought to recover the value of goods sold and delivered.

The complaint alleges that the plaintiff is a foreign corporation, but neither the complaint nor the answer alleges that the plaintiff was doing business ■ in this State, or, that the goods were sold or delivered within the State.

' The contract sued on, to deliver goods “ f.o.b.” in Illinois, was an Illinois contract. See 35 Cyc. 174; Cahen v. Platt, 69 N. Y. 348. The learned trial judge dismissed the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff corporation was doing business within the State.and had not obtained a certificate as required by section 15 of the General Corporation Law. There was no evidence on which to base the finding, and the dismissal of the complaint was error. See Bremer v. Ring, [637]*637146 App. Div. 724; Singer Sewing Machine Co., v. Foster, 76 Misc. Rep. 641; Acorn Brass Mfg. Co. v. Rutenberg, 147 App. Div. 533.

Seabury and Bijltr, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

75 Misc. 636, 133 N.Y.S. 1073, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/e-h-stafford-manufacturing-co-v-newman-nyappterm-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack