Roberts v. Pioneer Iron Works

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Roberts v. Pioneer Iron Works

125 A.D. 207, 109 N.Y.S. 230, 1908 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2747

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

DecidedMarch 11, 1908

StatusPublished

This text of 125 A.D. 207 (Roberts v. Pioneer Iron Works) 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

Roberts v. Pioneer Iron Works, 125 A.D. 207, 109 N.Y.S. 230, 1908 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2747 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

Gaynor, J.:

The complaint alleges that “ the Lewis Foundry & Machine Com-, pany, a Pennsylvania corporation ”, manufactured and sold to the defendant certain steel rolls, and that it assigned its cause of action therefor to the plaintiff. The defendant’s motion that the complaint be made more definite and certain, so as to show whether the plaintiff’s assignor is a corporation, and, if so, whether domestic or foreign, and, if the latter, “the state, country or government” under whose laws it was created, also whether it is a “ stock, non-stock, or mixed” corporation, and if the first whether it be a “moneyed, transportation or business” corporation, was denied below. The motion was purely captious and vexatious. Section 1775 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires a plaintiff corporation to allege in the complaint that it is a corporation, whether it is domestic or foreign, and if the latter, the state or country under whose laws it was created. The plaintiff here is not a corporation. But if we should be willing to assume that it has to allege the status of its corporate assignor in the manner required by the said section, it has done so. The allegation that it is “ a Pennsylvania corporation ”, shows all that the said section required, i. <?., that it is a corporation, that it is foreign, and the state of its origin. It may well seem strange that our over-burdened courts are called upon by a learned bar to deal with frivolous questions like this.

The order is affirmed.

Woodward, Jenks, Hooker and High, JJ., concurred.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

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

Gaynor, J.:

The complaint alleges that “ the Lewis Foundry & Machine Com-, pany, a Pennsylvania corporation ”, manufactured and sold to the defendant certain steel rolls, and that it assigned its cause of action therefor to the plaintiff. The defendant’s motion that the complaint be made more definite and certain, so as to show whether the plaintiff’s assignor is a corporation, and, if so, whether domestic or foreign, and, if the latter, “the state, country or government” under whose laws it was created, also whether it is a “ stock, non-stock, or mixed” corporation, and if the first whether it be a “moneyed, transportation or business” corporation, was denied below. The motion was purely captious and vexatious. Section 1775 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires a plaintiff corporation to allege in the complaint that it is a corporation, whether it is domestic or foreign, and if the latter, the state or country under whose laws it was created. The plaintiff here is not a corporation. But if we should be willing to assume that it has to allege the status of its corporate assignor in the manner required by the said section, it has done so. The allegation that it is “ a Pennsylvania corporation ”, shows all that the said section required, i. <?., that it is a corporation, that it is foreign, and the state of its origin. It may well seem strange that our over-burdened courts are called upon by a learned bar to deal with frivolous questions like this.

The order is affirmed.

Woodward, Jenks, Hooker and High, JJ., concurred.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 A.D. 207, 109 N.Y.S. 230, 1908 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2747, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roberts-v-pioneer-iron-works-nyappdiv-1908.