Case Name: WOOD & SELICK v. BALL
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1906-07-12
Citations: 100 N.Y.S. 119
Docket Number: 
Parties: WOOD & SELICK v. BALL.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 100
Pages: 119–121

Head Matter:
(114 App. Div. 743)
WOOD & SELICK v. BALL.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
July 12, 1906.)
1. Teial—Nonsuit—Grounds—Failure to Allege Cause of Action.
Under Code Civ. Proc. § 499, providing that the objection that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action is not waived by a failure to raise the question by demurrer or answer, such question may be raised by motion for nonsuit at the close of the evidence.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 46, Cent. Dig. Trial, §§ 364, 366.]
2. Corporations—Foreign Corporations—Actions—Complaint—Compliance
with State Law.
Where the complaint by a foreign stock corporation to recover the purchase price of an article sold failed to allege that plaintiff had complied with General Corporation Law, Laws 1892, p. 1805, c. 687, § 15, as amended by Laws 1901, p, 1326, c. 538, entitling a corporation to do business within the .state, it failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 12, Cent. Dig. Corporations, §§ 2646-2648.]
3. Same—Stock Corporation.
Where a complaint by a foreign corporation was to recover the purchase price of an article sold in New York, it sufficiently indicated that plaintiff was a stock corporation, within General Corporation Law, Laws 1892, p. 1805, c. 687, § 15, as amended by Laws 1901, p. 1326, c. 538, regulating the business of foreign corporations within the state.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 12, Cent. Dig. Corporations, §§ 2646-2648.]
McLennan, P. J., and Kruse, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Jefferson County Court.
Action by Wood & Selick against Annie M. Ball. From a judgment in favor of defendant on a nonsuit, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before McLENNAN, P. J., and SPRING, WILLIAMS, NASH, and KRUSE, JJ.
Brown, Carlisle & McCartin, for appellant.
Joseph A. McConnell, for respondent.

Opinion:
WILLIAMS, J.
The judgment should be affirmed, with costs. The ground of the nonsuit was that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The plaintiff was a foreign corporation. The action was brought to recover the purchase price of "Liquid Egg," so called, sold to defendant at the city of Watertown, N. Y. The complaint did not allege the plaintiff had complied with section 15 of the general corporation law (chapter 687, p. 1805, Laws 1892, amended by chapter 538, p. 1326, Laws of 1901). The question was not raised by demurrer or answer, but by motion for nonsuit after the evidence had been taken on the trial. It is provided by section 499 of the Code of Civil Procedure that the objection that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitue a cause of action is not waived by a failure to raise the question by demurrer or answer. Welsbach v. N. Gas & Elec. Co., 96 App. Div. 52, 89 N. Y. Supp. 284, affirmed 180 N. Y. 533, 72 N. E. 1152, seems to be decisive upon the question that it is necessary to allege the compliance with this statute in order to make a valid complaint. The question was there raised by demurrer. The trial court overruled the same, but the Appellate Division reversed, holding that the demurrer should have been sustained. On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the court affirmed the Appellate Division, holding distinctly that the complaint was demurrable. The former decisions of the Court of Appeals were considered by the Appellate Division, and distinguished. It is useless to go over them again here.
It is suggested that it does not appear that the plaintiff is a stock corporation. The complaint contains the same allegation as the one in the Welsbach Case, and it is admitted in the-answer that the plaintiff is a foreign corporation. Upon the trial, while there was much discussion as to whether the question of the inability of the plaintiff to sue without alleging its right to do business in this state should be raised by demurrer or answer, no suggestion was made that the corporation was not a stock corporation, and hence within the provision of the statute. Had any suggestion of that kind been made on the trial, proof could have been given. Again, the character of the transactions, the sales of the goods made, indicate that the plaintiff was a stock corporation.
It is suggested that a recovery ought to be permitted, if possible. The logic of that suggestion might do away with the statute in every instance.
Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur, except McLENNAN, P. J., and KRUSE, J., who dissent.