Case ID: nys_59/html/1116-14.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

VOLK HAT CO., Appellant, v. LOMAN, Respondent.
    (City Court of New York,
    General Term.
    June 29, 1899.)
    Action by the Volk Hat Company against Sarah Loman. From a judgment dismissing the complaint, plaintiff appeals. ■
    Reversed.
    John B. Green, for appellant. August C. Sohne, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

The action was brought for goods sold and delivered by plaintiff to defendant. The complaint alleged that the sale was made at, and the delivery made from, South Norwalk, Conn. The answer denied that the sale was made at South Norwalk, and alleged, on the contrary, that the sale and delivery were made in New York state, and further pleaded, as a special defense, that the plaintiff is a foreign corporation, and has procured no certificate from the secretary of state of the state of New York authorizing it to do business in this state, as provided by the Laws of 1892. There was no denial that the defendant had bought and received the goods sued for, and had failed to pay the agreed price therefor, and it was stipulated on the trial that the dates, prices, credits, and amounts as alleged in the complaint were correct. The only issue, therefore, was whether plaintiff, being a foreign corporation, and not having procured the said certificate, was doing business within this state. We have examined the authorities to which our attention has been invited by the briefs of the respective parties, and are clearly of the opinion that plaintiff was not doing business within this state, within the meaning of the statute referred to. It follows, therefore, that the court erred in dismissing the plaintiff's complaint, and that a new trial should be ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.