Legal Opinion
Ultramar Company, Limited v. . Minerals Separation, Ltd.
New York Court of Appeals
Decided October 16, 1923PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Per curiam
We think the defendant, Minerals Separation, Limited, a British corporation, was not engaged in business in this state at the time of the service of the summons (Tauza v. Susquehanna Coal Co., 220 N. Y. 259; Holzer v. Dodge Bros., 233 N. Y. 216).
The facts on which this conclusion is founded have been fully stated in the opinion of the Special Term, and no useful purpose would be promoted if they were to be repeated here.
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, and that of the Special Term affirmed, with costs in the Appellate Division and in this court; the first question…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Tauza v. . Susquehanna Coal Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1917
- Holzer v. . Dodge BrothersNew York Court of Appeals · 1922
3Cited by11 opinions
- Compania Mexicana Refinadora Island v. Compania Metropolitana De OleoductosNew York Court of Appeals · 1928
- In re the Estate of SteinbergNew York Surrogate's Court · 1934
- Stark v. Howe Sound Co.New York Supreme Court · 1931
- Compania Mexicana Refinadora Island, S. A. v. Compania Metropolitana de Oleoductos, S. A.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1928
- Hewitt v. Canadian Pacific Railway Co.New York Supreme Court · 1924
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.