Huo Chin Yin v. Amino Products Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Huo Chin Yin v. Amino Products Co.

256 A.D. 697, 11 N.Y.S.2d 373, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4820

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

DecidedApril 21, 1939

StatusPublished

This text of 256 A.D. 697 (Huo Chin Yin v. Amino Products 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

Huo Chin Yin v. Amino Products Co., 256 A.D. 697, 11 N.Y.S.2d 373, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4820 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinions

Untermyer, J.

We are of the opinion that the issue whether the defendant is doing business within this State so as to render it amenable to the service of process should be referred to a referee to hear and report. In connection therewith we direct attention to the allegation in the affidavit of the defendant’s vice-president, Marshall, to the effect that the defendant’s products are sold in this State through R. W. Greeff & Co., upon receipt of orders from that firm. It is not clear, however, whether these products are sold by the defendant through Greeff & Co., as its agent here, or whether they are sold by the defendant to Greeff & Co. in Michigan and resold by that firm within this State. This question, together with the other issues presented, can be better clarified upon a reference than by affidavits.

The order should be modified by referring the issues to an official referee to hear and to report to the Supreme Court, New York county, Special Term, Part 1.

Townley and Glennon, JJ., concur; Martin, P. J., dissents and votes to affirm in memorandum, in which Cohn, J., concurs.

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

Untermyer, J.

We are of the opinion that the issue whether the defendant is doing business within this State so as to render it amenable to the service of process should be referred to a referee to hear and report. In connection therewith we direct attention to the allegation in the affidavit of the defendant’s vice-president, Marshall, to the effect that the defendant’s products are sold in this State through R. W. Greeff & Co., upon receipt of orders from that firm. It is not clear, however, whether these products are sold by the defendant through Greeff & Co., as its agent here, or whether they are sold by the defendant to Greeff & Co. in Michigan and resold by that firm within this State. This question, together with the other issues presented, can be better clarified upon a reference than by affidavits.

The order should be modified by referring the issues to an official referee to hear and to report to the Supreme Court, New York county, Special Term, Part 1.

Townley and Glennon, JJ., concur; Martin, P. J., dissents and votes to affirm in memorandum, in which Cohn, J., concurs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D. 697, 11 N.Y.S.2d 373, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4820, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/huo-chin-yin-v-amino-products-co-nyappdiv-1939.