From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stafford Manufacturing Co. v. Newman

Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Mar 1, 1912
75 Misc. 636 (N.Y. App. Term 1912)

Opinion

March, 1912.

William Wallace Young, for appellant.

Engel Brothers (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. 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. There was no evidence on which to base the finding, and the dismissal of the complaint was error. See Bremer v. Ring. 146 A.D. 724; Singer Sewing Machine Co. v. Foster, 75 Misc. Rep. 641; Acorn Brass Mfg. Co. v. Rutenberg, 147 A.D. 533.

SEABURY and BIJUR, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.


Summaries of

Stafford Manufacturing Co. v. Newman

Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Mar 1, 1912
75 Misc. 636 (N.Y. App. Term 1912)
Case details for

Stafford Manufacturing Co. v. Newman

Case Details

Full title:THE E.H. STAFFORD MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Appellant, v . MORRIS NEWMAN…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term

Date published: Mar 1, 1912

Citations

75 Misc. 636 (N.Y. App. Term 1912)
133 N.Y.S. 1073

Citing Cases

Pittsburg Shawmut Coal Co. v. State of New York

It is undisputed that Barnett had no authority to bind the claimant, and that all contracts must be approved…