Hyperlawhypertext legal database E. H. Stafford Manufacturing Co. v. Newman 133 N.Y.S. 1073

← Cases

E. H. Stafford Manufacturing Co. v. Newman

133 N.Y.S. 1073 Court N.Y. App. Term Decision date 1912-03-08 English

Delivered by GUY, J.

Contents

Majority

p. 1073
E. H. STAFFORD MFG. CO. v. NEWMAN.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
March 8, 1912.)

Headnote

Corporations (§ 672[1] )—Civil Actions—Conditions Precedent—Pleading— Dismissal.
Where a foreign corporation brought suit on an Illinois sale contract, and neither party alleged that the plaintiff was doing business in the state, or that the goods were sold or delivered in the state, it was error
p. 1074
to dismiss the complaint because the plaintiff had not complied with General Corporation Law (Consol. Laws 1909, c. 23) § 15, requiring foreign corporations doing business in the state to obtain a certificate.
[Ed. Note.—Eor other cases, see Corporations, Cent. Dig. §§ 2645-2649; Dec. Dig. § 672.[1] ]
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Seventh District.
_ 'Action by the E. H. Stafford Manufacturing Company against Mor_ ris Newman. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.
Reversed, and new trial ordered.
- Argued February term, 1912, before SFABURY, GUY, and BI-JUR, JJ.
William Wallace Young, for appellant.
Engel Bros. (Adolph Engel, of counsel), for respondent.

This action is brought to recover the value of goods sold and delivered. The complaint alleges that the plaintiff is a foreign corporation; but neither the complaint nor the answer alleges that the plaintiff was doing business in this state, or that the goods were sold or delivered within the state.

The contract sued on, to deliver goods “f. o. b.” in Illinois, was an Illinois contract. See 35 Cyc. 174; Cahen v. Platt, 69 N. Y. 348 , 25 Am. Rep. 212 . The learned trial judge dismissed the complaint, on the ground that the plaintiff corporation was doing business within the state, and had not obtained a certificate as required by section 15 of the General Corporation Law (Consol. Laws 1909, c. 23). There was’ no evidence on which to base the finding, and the dismissal of the complaint was error. See Bremer v. Ring, 146 App. Div. 724 , 131 N. Y. Supp. 487 ; Singer Sewing Machine Co. v. Foster, 133 N. Y. Supp. 1072 (Appellate Term, February, 1912); Acorn Brass Mfg. Co. v. Rutenberg, 132 N. Y. Supp. 600 .

Judgment reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur. •

Cases cited