Metropolitan Discount Co. v. Pitsch

Appellate Court of Illinois

Metropolitan Discount Co. v. Pitsch

208 Ill. App. 407

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedAugust 7, 1917

DocketGen. No. 6,436

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 208 Ill. App. 407 (Metropolitan Discount Co. v. Pitsch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Metropolitan Discount Co. v. Pitsch, 208 Ill. App. 407 (Ill. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice Carnes

delivered the opinion of the court.

4. Corporations, § 763*—what is sufficient plea in bar to action by foreign corporation. The defense set up in a plea to an action hy a corporation based upon certain acceptances by defendant that plaintiff was one and the same as another corporation of a different name and that both were foreign corporations, and neither was licensed to do business in the State, and that plaintiff was engaged in peddling its goods in the. State without being so licensed, held, on demurrer, properly pleaded in bar, under the Foreign Corporation Statute (J. &-A. K 2526 et seq.), of such action, seeking to recover for such goods sold by plaintiff to defendant. 5. Corporations, § 709*—what constitutes doing -business within State. Peddling goods in the State by a foreign corporation constitutes “doing business” within the State within the meaning of the Foreign Corporation Statute (J. & A. If 2526 et seq.). 6. Pleading, § 26*—when plea not duplicitous. A plea setting up. want of consideration for certain acceptances sued on and also that plaintiff was an unlicensed foreign corporation doing business within the State by peddling its goods therein and selling such goods to defendant for which such acceptances were given, held not bad for duplicity.

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

Mr. Presiding Justice Carnes

delivered the opinion of the court.

4. Corporations, § 763*—what is sufficient plea in bar to action by foreign corporation. The defense set up in a plea to an action hy a corporation based upon certain acceptances by defendant that plaintiff was one and the same as another corporation of a different name and that both were foreign corporations, and neither was licensed to do business in the State, and that plaintiff was engaged in peddling its goods in the. State without being so licensed, held, on demurrer, properly pleaded in bar, under the Foreign Corporation Statute (J. &-A. K 2526 et seq.), of such action, seeking to recover for such goods sold by plaintiff to defendant. 5. Corporations, § 709*—what constitutes doing -business within State. Peddling goods in the State by a foreign corporation constitutes “doing business” within the State within the meaning of the Foreign Corporation Statute (J. & A. If 2526 et seq.). 6. Pleading, § 26*—when plea not duplicitous. A plea setting up. want of consideration for certain acceptances sued on and also that plaintiff was an unlicensed foreign corporation doing business within the State by peddling its goods therein and selling such goods to defendant for which such acceptances were given, held not bad for duplicity.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 Ill. App. 407, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/metropolitan-discount-co-v-pitsch-illappct-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack