Heinzelman v. Union News Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Heinzelman v. Union News Co.

275 A.D.2d 931

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 28, 1949

StatusPublished

This text of 275 A.D.2d 931 (Heinzelman v. Union News Co.) 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

Heinzelman v. Union News Co., 275 A.D.2d 931 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

Callahan, J.

(dissenting). I dissent. In my opinion the New Jersey Legislature did not intend the term “resident” as used in the applicable statute (3 Comp. Stat. of N. J., 1910, § 8, p. 3166; N. J. Stat. Ann., § 2:24-7) to be so narrowly construed that its application to a corporation was confined to one actually incorporated and doing business in the State. This is a statute of limitations and thus meant to be a statute of repose. It was not intended that an action could be indefinitely postponed against a foreign corporation licensed to do business in New Jersey, and which had made itself amenable to suit by [932]*932designation of a resident agent to accept service of process pursuant to law. I think that appellant should be regarded as a “resident” corporation within the meaning of the statute aforesaid, and that this action was limited by the New Jersey two-year period of limitations.

Peek, P. J., Glennon, Cohn and Van Yoorhis, JJ., concur in decision; Callahan, J., dissents in opinion.

Order affirmed with $20 costs and disbursements. No opinion. [191 Misc. 267.] [See post, p. 1025.]

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

Callahan, J.

(dissenting). I dissent. In my opinion the New Jersey Legislature did not intend the term “resident” as used in the applicable statute (3 Comp. Stat. of N. J., 1910, § 8, p. 3166; N. J. Stat. Ann., § 2:24-7) to be so narrowly construed that its application to a corporation was confined to one actually incorporated and doing business in the State. This is a statute of limitations and thus meant to be a statute of repose. It was not intended that an action could be indefinitely postponed against a foreign corporation licensed to do business in New Jersey, and which had made itself amenable to suit by [932]*932designation of a resident agent to accept service of process pursuant to law. I think that appellant should be regarded as a “resident” corporation within the meaning of the statute aforesaid, and that this action was limited by the New Jersey two-year period of limitations.

Peek, P. J., Glennon, Cohn and Van Yoorhis, JJ., concur in decision; Callahan, J., dissents in opinion.

Order affirmed with $20 costs and disbursements. No opinion. [191 Misc. 267.] [See post, p. 1025.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 931, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heinzelman-v-union-news-co-nyappdiv-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack