Majority
Headnote
Attachment—Corporations—Code Civ. Peo., § 3169.The defendant moved to vacate an attachment granted on July 22, 1891, on the ground that it was a domestic corporation, and that it, “ at the time the said warrant of attachment was granted, and at all times thereafter, had its principal place of business within the city of New York,” and on affidavits'stating that its certificate of incorporation provided “ that the objects for which said company is formed are the manufacturing and selling of boots and shoes,” and “ that the names of the town and county in which the operations of said company are to be carried on are Poughkeepsie, county of Dutchess, state of New York; ” that such certificate was dated and acknowledged and filed in Dutchess county clerk’s office on December 28, 1885, and “ that said certificate of incorporation has been in no respect modified, amended or enlarged.”
The affidavits further show that by petition dated July 27, 1891, a majority of defendant’s trustees “ made application at a special term of the supreme court, held in and for the county of Dutchess,” for its voluntary dissolution, whereupon the receiver who makes this application to vacate was appointed by order of Judge Barnard, duly filed in Dutchess county clerk’s office. However these affidavits set forth that: “ Immediately after" the said defendant was organized as a corporation, it rented a store and office at premises No. 116 Duane street in the city of New York, as and for its principal place of business, and the said premises have continuously been occupied by the said defendant from 1885 until the present time, as its principal place of business,” and that “ during the said period the said company has manufactured boots and shoes at the city of Poughkeepsie, in the state of New York, where its factory is situated.” The principal business of this corporation would seem to have been the manufacturing of boots and shoes at Poughkeepsie and that the business of selling was merely incidental, and moreover the corporation treated Dutchess as “ the county in which the business of the company shall be carried on ” as required by the act, for it filed its certificates of incorporation there, and as required by § 2423 of the Code it presented the petition for its voluntary dissolution at a term of the supreme court “ held within the judicial district em
It has, also, been held that the last certificate designating the place of the operation of the business of the company and filed in accordance with the provisions of the act is conclusive evidence of the legal residence of the corporation for the purpose of taxation. Western T. Co. v. Sheu, 19 N. Y., 408 ; Union Steamboat Co. v. City of Buffalo, 82 id., 351; Chesebrough Co. v. Coleman, 44 Hun, 545 ; 9 N. Y. State Rep., 360. And no authority has been cited or found which allows such a domestic corporation to establish its principal place of business other than by making and filing an original • or amended certificate of designation of the same as required by the statute, and it is well that it is so, as any other rule would certainly lead to confusion and inconvenience and would be illogical. The principal place of business referred to in ■§ 3169 of the Code means such place as is so designated by certificate made and filed as aforesaid, and the defendant’s principal place of business is not within the city of Hew York, but at Poughkeepsie by its own designation by certificate filed in Dutchess county clerk’s office.
The order denying motion to vacate the attachment must be .affirmed, with costs.
Ehrlich, Ch. J., concurs.