Legal Opinion

Deutsch v. Hoge

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided November 10, 1943PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

GODDARD, District Judge.

Motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction of the defendants. The defendants, doing business under the name of Hoge Brush Company of Ohio, were allegedly served in this state pursuant to Section 229-b of the Civil Practice Act of the State of New York. Originally a state Supreme Court action, it was subsequently removed to this court.

Section 229-b provides that when any nonresident person shall engage in business in this state, in any action against such person arising out of such business, the summons may be served on the person, who at the time of…

2Cases cited6 opinions

People's Tobacco Co. v. American Tobacco Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1918
W. S. Tyler Co. v. Ludlow-Saylor Wire Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1915
Davega, Inc. v. Lincoln Furniture Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1928
Hamlin v. G. E. Barrett & Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1927
Cohen v. American Window Glass Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1941

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

Deutsch v. HogeCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1944