Harris Automatic Press Co. v. Demarest Pattern Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Harris Automatic Press Co. v. Demarest Pattern Co.

47 Misc. 624, 94 N.Y.S. 462

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 15, 1905

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 47 Misc. 624 (Harris Automatic Press Co. v. Demarest Pattern Co.) 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

Harris Automatic Press Co. v. Demarest Pattern Co., 47 Misc. 624, 94 N.Y.S. 462 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

MacLean, J.

On December 10, 1903, the defendant executed and delivered to the plaintiff a chattel mortgage, providing for entry, possession, and sale upon default in the payment of any of the installments therein conditioned, at stated times, to be paid. The defendant thereafter defaulted, the plaintiff, as was its right, foreclosed, a right not taken from it by provision for sale under the power mentioned (Briggs v. Oliver, 68 N. Y. 336, 339), and it was not necessary that the mortgage should so declare. Bragelman v. Daue, 69 N. Y. 69, 74. Nor was it reversible fault that the plaintiff, a foreign corporation, failed to plead its compliance with our laws in regard to permission to do business here, for the defendant, answering with a general denial upon information and belief, even as to its own incorporation, waived its right to raise the'question. C. R. Parmele Co. v. Haas, 171 N. Y. 519, 583.

The judgment should, therefore, be affirmed.

Scott and Dtgro, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

MacLean, J.

On December 10, 1903, the defendant executed and delivered to the plaintiff a chattel mortgage, providing for entry, possession, and sale upon default in the payment of any of the installments therein conditioned, at stated times, to be paid. The defendant thereafter defaulted, the plaintiff, as was its right, foreclosed, a right not taken from it by provision for sale under the power mentioned (Briggs v. Oliver, 68 N. Y. 336, 339), and it was not necessary that the mortgage should so declare. Bragelman v. Daue, 69 N. Y. 69, 74. Nor was it reversible fault that the plaintiff, a foreign corporation, failed to plead its compliance with our laws in regard to permission to do business here, for the defendant, answering with a general denial upon information and belief, even as to its own incorporation, waived its right to raise the'question. C. R. Parmele Co. v. Haas, 171 N. Y. 519, 583.

The judgment should, therefore, be affirmed.

Scott and Dtgro, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 Misc. 624, 94 N.Y.S. 462, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-automatic-press-co-v-demarest-pattern-co-nyappterm-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack