E. T. Burrowes Co. v. Caplin

127 A.D. 317, 111 N.Y.S. 498, 1908 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1972
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 29, 1908·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Woodward, J.,:

This action was brought to recover for goods sold- and delivered. The pleadings were oral; and the defense urged was-that the goods did hot comply with the specifications ■ contemplated by'the parties. Upon. this point the- court has found against the defendant, and upon this appeal there is ho contention that the judgment is not supported by the evidence. It is urged, however, by the defendant that'the plaintiff-is a foreign corporation doing business within this State within the contemplation of the statute, and without complying with the conditions ef sections 15 and 16 of the' General Corporation Law.

Footnotes

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

E. T. Burrowes Co. v. Caplin, 127 A.D. 317, 111 N.Y.S. 498, 1908 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1972 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1908).

127 A.D. 317 (E. T. Burrowes Co. v. Caplin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Premeaux v. Henry Ford & Son, Inc.
98 So. 856 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1923)
Eagle Manufacturing Co. v. Arkell & Douglas, Inc.
197 A.D. 788 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1921)
Hovey v. . De Long Hook Eye Co.
105 N.E. 667 (New York Court of Appeals, 1914)