Paraffine Paint Co. v. Tarbox

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Paraffine Paint Co. v. Tarbox

114 N.Y.S. 54

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJanuary 8, 1909

StatusPublished

This text of 114 N.Y.S. 54 (Paraffine Paint Co. v. Tarbox) 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

Paraffine Paint Co. v. Tarbox, 114 N.Y.S. 54 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

BISCHOFF, J.

The plaintiff, a stock corporation organized under the laws of California, brought this action to recover the agreed price of certain paints sold and delivered by it to the defendant. Upon the trial the defendant admitted the sale and delivery of the goods, but contended that the action was not maintainable, because the plaintiff had not at the time of the transaction, secured from the Secretary of State a certificate allowing it to do business in this state, as required by General Corporation Law (Laws 1892, p. 1805, c. 687) § 15, as amended by Laws 1901, p. 267, c. 96, § 1, without which a foreign stock corporation doing business in this state is inhibited from maintaining any action in this state upon any contract made therein. By the very terms of.the statute the inhibition applies only to contracts made within the state, and, since the record is destitute of anything tending to show that the contract sued upon was made within the state, we cannot do otherwise than affirm the judgment appealed from.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.

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

BISCHOFF, J.

The plaintiff, a stock corporation organized under the laws of California, brought this action to recover the agreed price of certain paints sold and delivered by it to the defendant. Upon the trial the defendant admitted the sale and delivery of the goods, but contended that the action was not maintainable, because the plaintiff had not at the time of the transaction, secured from the Secretary of State a certificate allowing it to do business in this state, as required by General Corporation Law (Laws 1892, p. 1805, c. 687) § 15, as amended by Laws 1901, p. 267, c. 96, § 1, without which a foreign stock corporation doing business in this state is inhibited from maintaining any action in this state upon any contract made therein. By the very terms of.the statute the inhibition applies only to contracts made within the state, and, since the record is destitute of anything tending to show that the contract sued upon was made within the state, we cannot do otherwise than affirm the judgment appealed from.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 N.Y.S. 54, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paraffine-paint-co-v-tarbox-nyappterm-1909.