Hyperlawhypertext legal database Paraffine Paint Co. v. Tarbox 114 N.Y.S. 54

← Cases

Paraffine Paint Co. v. Tarbox

114 N.Y.S. 54 Court N.Y. App. Term Decision date 1909-01-08 English

Delivered by BISCHOFF, J.

Contents

Majority

p. 54
PARAFFINE PAINT CO. v. TARBOX.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
January 8, 1909.)

Headnote

Appeal Arm Errob (§ 909[1] )—Review—Presumptions—Facts Not in Record.
The judgment allowing a foreign corporation to recover for goods sold and delivered cannot be disturbed, though it had not secured a certificate allowing it to do business in the state, as required by General Corporation Law (Laws 1892, p. 1805, c. 687) § 15,- as amended by Laws 1901, p. 267, c. 96, § 1; the record not showing the contract was made in the state,, and the statute in terms inhibiting actions only on such contracts for failure to obtain the certificate.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Dec. Dig. § 909.[1] ]
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Third District.
Action by the Paraffine Paint Company against Charles W. Tarbox. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before GILDERSLEEVE, P. J., and BISCHOEF and GUY, JJ.
John Santora, for appellant.
Louis H. Porter, for respondent.

The plaintiff, a stock corporation organized under the laws of California, brought this action to recover the agreed price of certain paints sold and delivered by it to the defendant. Upon the trial the defendant admitted the sale and delivery of the goods, but contended that the action was not maintainable, because the plaintiff had not at the time of the transaction, secured from the Secretary of State a certificate allowing it to do business in this state, as required by General Corporation Law (Laws 1892, p. 1805, c. 687) § 15, as amended by Laws 1901, p. 267, c. 96, § 1, without which a foreign stock corporation doing business in this state is inhibited from maintaining any action in this state upon any contract made therein. By the very terms of.the statute the inhibition applies only to contracts made within the state, and, since the record is destitute of anything tending to show that the contract sued upon was made within the state, we cannot do otherwise than affirm the judgment appealed from.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.