President v. Thorp

6 Cow. 46
New York Supreme Court·Decided August 15, 1826·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Curia.

It was very properly conceded on the argument, by the counsel for the defendant, that foreign corporations may sue here. Nothing is better settled. (4 Cow-en, 529, note, and cases there cited.) Is this case, then, distinguishable in principle ? We think not. The act does not interfere with an existing remedy of our own. It was likened to the case of the assignees of foreign bankrupts, who, as it is held by some cases, cannot sue here. ( Vid. 4 Cowen, 530, note, and cases there cited.) But the cases are not similar. Though bankrupt assignments are sanctioned by statute, they have been regarded in the light of voluntary assignments ; and when they relate to choses in action, we may apply our owft remedies; holding that the suit must still be in the name of the original creditor. These trustees are a quasi corporation; and come directly within the rule which gives an action here in favor of a foreign corporation.

Motion granted.

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

President v. Thorp, 6 Cow. 46 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1826).

6 Cow. 46 (President v. Thorp) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Berlin Realty Corp. v. Gorman
153 Misc. 833 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1934)
Insurance Co. v. The C. D., Jr.
13 F. Cas. 65 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Louisiana, 1870)
Thornburgh v. Savage Min. Co.
23 F. Cas. 1113 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada, 1867)
Persse & Brooks Paper Works v. Willet
14 Abb. Pr. 119 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1862)
Becht v. Harris
4 Minn. 504 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1860)