International Textbook Co. v. Hockeborn

Headnote

International Textbook Co. v. Hockeborn, 165 App. Div. 949 , affirmed.

Appeal, by permission, from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered November 23, 1914, which unanimously affirmed a judgment of the Cayuga County Court affirming a judgment of the City Court of Auburn in favor of defendant in an action on contract. The defendant admitted the making of the contract and its breach, but contended that the plaintiff was and is a foreign corporation organized and existing by virtue of

the laws of the state of Pennsylvania and that appellant at the time of the making of said contract was unlawfully and illegally doing business in the state of New York contrary to the provisions of sections 15 and 16 of the General Corporation Law of the state of New York, and further, that appellant had never paid to the state treasurer of the state of New York for the use of the state the license or tax required by section 181 of the Tax Law of the state of New York to be paid by a foreign corporation, and the appellant had never obtained a receipt for the license fee imposed by section 181 of the Tax Law. The plaintiff admitted that it had never procured from the secretary of state the certificate as required by sections 15 and 16 of the General Corporation Law of the state of New York and that it had never paid to the state treasurer of the state of New York the license fee as required by section 181 of the Tax Law of the state of New York, and that it had never received a receipt for the license fee as imposed by section 181 of the Tax Law of the state of New York. It appearing upon the argument in this court that the decision appealed from was in direct contradiction with a subsequent decision of this court, and that owing to the unanimous affirmance herein the facts could not be considered and the two decisions thus harmonized, the decision herein was suspended in order to permit the appellant to apply to the Appellate Division to request that the case be remitted to that court for re-argument and further consideration. (See 222 N. Y. 693 .) Appellant, however, failed to make the said application.