Volk Hat Co. v. Loman

City of New York Municipal Court

Volk Hat Co. v. Loman

28 Misc. 793, 59 N.Y.S. 1116

DecidedJuly 15, 1899

StatusPublished

This text of 28 Misc. 793 (Volk Hat Co. v. Loman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering City of New York Municipal Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Volk Hat Co. v. Loman, 28 Misc. 793, 59 N.Y.S. 1116 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The action was brought for goods sold and delivered by plaintiff to defendant. The complaint alleged that the sale was made at and the delivery made from South Norwalk, Conn.; the answer denied that the sale was made at South Nor-walk, and alleged on the contrary that the sale and delivery were made in the State of New York, and further pleaded as a special defense that the plaintiff is a foreign corporation and had procured no certificate from the Secretary of the State of New York authorizing it to do business in this State as provided by the Laws of 1892. There is no denial that the defendant had bought and received the goods sued for, and had failed to pay the agreed price therefor, and it was stipulated on the trial that the dates, prices, credits and amounts as alleged in the complaint were correct.

The only issues were, therefore, whether the plaintiff, being a foreign corporation and not having procured the required certificate, was doing business in this State, and if so, whether the contract for the sale of the goods in question was made in this State. We have examined the authorities to which our attention has been invited by the briefs of the respective parties, and are clearly of the opinion that plaintiff was not doing business within this State, within the meaning of the statute referred to.

It follows, therefore, that the court erred in dismissing plaintiff’s complaint, and that a new trial should he ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Present: Conlan, Hascall and Schuchman, JJ.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.

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

Per Curiam.

The action was brought for goods sold and delivered by plaintiff to defendant. The complaint alleged that the sale was made at and the delivery made from South Norwalk, Conn.; the answer denied that the sale was made at South Nor-walk, and alleged on the contrary that the sale and delivery were made in the State of New York, and further pleaded as a special defense that the plaintiff is a foreign corporation and had procured no certificate from the Secretary of the State of New York authorizing it to do business in this State as provided by the Laws of 1892. There is no denial that the defendant had bought and received the goods sued for, and had failed to pay the agreed price therefor, and it was stipulated on the trial that the dates, prices, credits and amounts as alleged in the complaint were correct.

The only issues were, therefore, whether the plaintiff, being a foreign corporation and not having procured the required certificate, was doing business in this State, and if so, whether the contract for the sale of the goods in question was made in this State. We have examined the authorities to which our attention has been invited by the briefs of the respective parties, and are clearly of the opinion that plaintiff was not doing business within this State, within the meaning of the statute referred to.

It follows, therefore, that the court erred in dismissing plaintiff’s complaint, and that a new trial should he ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Present: Conlan, Hascall and Schuchman, JJ.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 Misc. 793, 59 N.Y.S. 1116, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/volk-hat-co-v-loman-nynyccityct-1899.