Legal Opinion
Halpern v. Pennsylvania Lumber Industries
New York Supreme Court
Decided August 11, 1930PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtPersonius, J.
The defendant moves to vacate the service of the summons on the grounds (1) that the person served was not an officer, and (2) that the defendant is a foreign corporation, not “ doing business ” within the State of New York.
The plaintiff resides in New York. The defendant is a Pennsylvania corporation. Service must, therefore, be made upon a party designated by section 229 of the Civil Practice Act. Nor can a foreign corporation be sued in New York unless it is “ doing business ” here. (Interocean, etc., Co. v. McCormick Co., 168 N. Y. Supp. 177, and cases cited at page 178.)
The summons was…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Tauza v. . Susquehanna Coal Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1917
- Rosenberg Bros. & Co. v. Curtis Brown Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Holzer v. . Dodge BrothersNew York Court of Appeals · 1922
- Robert Dollar Co. v. Canadian Car & Foundry Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1917
- Ray D. Lillibridge, Inc. v. Johnson Bronze Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1927
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Johnson v. Aeroil Products Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1963
- Etter v. Early Foundry Co.New York Supreme Court · 1937
- Consolidated Indemnity & Ins. v. Alliance Casualty Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1933
- Halpin v. North American Refractories Co.City of New York Municipal Court · 1934
- Leading Perfumers & Chemists, Inc. v. Nussbaum Novelty Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1939
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.