Case Name: The P. Steiger Trunk and Bag Company, Respondent, v. Henry H. Wharncliffe and Michael A. Boldt, Trading as Travellers' Specialty Company, Appellants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1909-01
Citations: 62 Misc. 14
Docket Number: 
Parties: The P. Steiger Trunk and Bag Company, Respondent, v. Henry H. Wharncliffe and Michael A. Boldt, Trading as Travellers’ Specialty Company, Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 62
Pages: 14–15

Head Matter:
The P. Steiger Trunk and Bag Company, Respondent, v. Henry H. Wharncliffe and Michael A. Boldt, Trading as Travellers’ Specialty Company, Appellants.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,
January, 1909.)
Foreign corporations — Recognition, regulation and status — Certificate of right to carry on business.
Municipal Courts — Procedure — Pleading — Amendments.
Pleading — Amendments — Amendments by leave of court — Time for amendments — Amendments at the trial.
In an action by a foreign corporation doing business in this State for goods sold and delivered, it is a defense that plaintiff had not procured a certificate of authority to do business in this State, as required by section 15 of the General 'Corporation Law, and a refusal to allow defendants to plead such fact by amendment to their answer is error.
Appeal by the defendants from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of Hew York, ninth district, borough of Manhattan.
Truax & Watson, for respondent.
H. Lionel Kringel, for appellants.

Opinion:
Guy, J.
This is an appeal from a judgment rendered by the court without a jury in favor of plaintiff for $401.60 balance due for trunks sold and delivered by plaintiff to defendants. The answer pleaded payment. On the trial defendants moved to amend the answer so as to allege that plaintiff was a foreign corporation doing business within the State of Hew York, and as such foreign corporation had failed to comply with section 15 of the General Corporation Law. The complaint and answer both alleged that the plaintiff is a foreign corporation, but not that plaintiff was doing business in the State of Hew York. The motion to amend was denied, and an exception taken.
The defense set up in the proposed amendment, if estab listed, would ¡have absolutely defeated plaintiff's right of recovery. Plaintiff could not plead surprise, as the facts relating to such defense were entirely in the possession of the plaintiff.
The motion should have been granted, and the refusal to do so was reversible error. Miles v. Kuttner, 59 Misc. Rep. 224.
Giedersleeve and Bischoff, JJ., concur.
Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellants to abide event.