Case Name: NORMAN MELLOR, TRADING AS ARGUTO OILLESS BEARING CORPORATION, APPELLANT, v. EDWARD V. HARTFORD, INCORPORATED, A CORPORATION, RESPONDENT
Court: New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1929-05-20
Citations: 106 N.J.L. 574
Docket Number: 
Parties: NORMAN MELLOR, TRADING AS ARGUTO OILLESS BEARING CORPORATION, APPELLANT, v. EDWARD V. HARTFORD, INCORPORATED, A CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 106
Pages: 574–575

Head Matter:
NORMAN MELLOR, TRADING AS ARGUTO OILLESS BEARING CORPORATION, APPELLANT, v. EDWARD V. HARTFORD, INCORPORATED, A CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.
Submitted October 26, 1928
Decided May 20, 1929.
On appeal from the Supreme Court in which the following per curiam was filed:
“This writ reviews an order made by the judge of the Hudson Circuit Court, quashing a writ of attachment against the defendant.
“The defendant was duly incorporated in the State of Hew York in 1904, under the name of the Hartford Suspension Company, and under such name it in 1908 filed a certificate in Hew Jersey to do business there. In 1916 the company filed a certificate in Hew York state changing its name to Edward V. Hartford, Incorporated, but omitted to register the change of name in Hew Jersey.
“The prosecutor contends that under circumstances that Edward V. Hartford, Incorporated, is a corporation not created or recognized in Hew Jersey nor authorized to do business here, and that consequently it comes within the fourth section of the Attachment act, and is subject to attachment as a non-resident corporation.
“The Attachment act originally applied only to non-resident individuals; it was later extended to include corporations. This extension has been construed to the same effect as the original act, i. e., to include only non-resident corporations.
“When the corporation, as in the instant ease is admitted, has its plant and property in Hew Jersey, and has resident officers here upon whom process may be served, it is considered a resident de facto corporation and is therefore exempt from attachment. This conclusion leads to an affirmance of the judgment of the Circuit Court.”
Eor the appellant, Perkins & Drewen.
Eor the respondent, Arthur T. Vanderbilt.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion of the Supreme Court.
For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Teen-chard, Kalisch, Lloyd, White, Yan Buskiek, McGlennon, Hetfield, Dear, JJ. 10.
For reversal — Paekee, Kays, JJ. 2.