Legal Opinion

Chile Copper Co. v. Edwards

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided November 14, 1923PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

LEARNED HAND, District Judge.

It is quite true that this plaintiff has been doing all that it was organized to do, and that this feature constantly runs through the cases, as if it were in some sense a test of whether it was “doing business” at all. Yet I cannot think that this would be a sound rule, or that it makes any difference whether the chartered powers are fully employed or not, because, as Mr. Justice Holmes said in U. S. v. Emery-Bird-Thayer Realty Co., 237 U. S. 28, 35 Sup. Ct. 499, 59 L. Ed. 825, the question is what it does, and not what it can do. There would be no justification…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Von Baumbach v. Sargent Land Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1917
  2. United States v. Emery, Bird, Thayer Realty Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1915
  3. McCoach v. Minehill & Schuylkill Haven RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
  4. Zonne v. Minneapolis SyndicateSupreme Court of the United States · 1911
  5. United States v. Nipissing Mines Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1913

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Kissel v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1929
  2. Three Forks Coal Co. v. United StatesDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1925
  3. Geisendorfer v. MillCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1945
  4. Edwards v. Chile Copper Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1925
  5. Geisendorfer v. Rainbow Mill & Lumber Co.California Court of Appeal · 1945

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API