Swift & Co. v. Karline

Headnote

Jurisdiction — attachment — State courts vnihout jurisdiction of action by foreign corporation doing business in this State against foreign corporation, not doing business here, to recover on cause not arising in nor concerning properly in this State.

Swift & Co. v. Obcanska Zalozna V. Karline, 219 App. Div. 821 , affirmed.

Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered March 25, 1927, unanimously affirming an

order of Special Term granting a motion to vacate a warrant of attachment on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The action was to recover for money had and received. Plaintiff and defendant were both foreign corporations. It is conceded that the cause of action did not arise in this State, did not concern property here and that defendant was not doing business in this State. Plaintiff claimed that the fact that it had obtained permission to do business in this State and was doing business here gave the courts jurisdiction.

The following questions were certified:

“1. Has the court power to grant a warrant of attachment herein?

“ 2. Has the court jurisdiction of the cause of action herein under section 47 of the General Corporation Law? ”