S. A. Cala v. Luis De Ridder Ltda. S. A.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

S. A. Cala v. Luis De Ridder Ltda. S. A.

17 A.D.2d 729, 232 N.Y.S.2d 284, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8069

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

DecidedSeptember 25, 1962

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 17 A.D.2d 729 (S. A. Cala v. Luis De Ridder Ltda. S. A.) 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

S. A. Cala v. Luis De Ridder Ltda. S. A., 17 A.D.2d 729, 232 N.Y.S.2d 284, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8069 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered on June 26, 1962, denying defendant’s motion to vacate warrant of attachment, unanimously reversed on the law and the facts, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellant, and the motion to vacate the attachment granted, with $10 costs. This action brought by a foreign corporation against another foreign corporation can only be maintained if the cause of action arose in this State (General Corporation Law, § 225). This cause of action did not arise here (Gonzalez v. Industrial Bank, 16 A D 2d 347). The entertainment of this action thus being beyond the power of the court, the warrant of attachment has no foundation upon which to rest and must be vacated (Swift & Co. v. Karline, 245 N. Y. 570). Settle order on notice. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

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

Order entered on June 26, 1962, denying defendant’s motion to vacate warrant of attachment, unanimously reversed on the law and the facts, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellant, and the motion to vacate the attachment granted, with $10 costs. This action brought by a foreign corporation against another foreign corporation can only be maintained if the cause of action arose in this State (General Corporation Law, § 225). This cause of action did not arise here (Gonzalez v. Industrial Bank, 16 A D 2d 347). The entertainment of this action thus being beyond the power of the court, the warrant of attachment has no foundation upon which to rest and must be vacated (Swift & Co. v. Karline, 245 N. Y. 570). Settle order on notice. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Valente, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.2d 729, 232 N.Y.S.2d 284, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8069, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/s-a-cala-v-luis-de-ridder-ltda-s-a-nyappdiv-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack