Legal Opinion

United Shoe Repairing MacHine Co. v. Carney

West Virginia Supreme Court

Decided April 30, 1935No. 8122PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Hatcher, Judge:

This is an action in detinue, brought for the purpose of recovering certain machinery leased to the defendant. He filed a plea in abatement, alleging that plaintiff was a Maine corporation doing business in West Virginia without becoming domesticated as required by statute, and under Code, 31-1-79, was not entitled to sue in the courts of this state. A demurrer to the plea was sustained. Plaintiff then proceeded to trial, obtaining a verdict and judgment. Defendant prosecutes error here on the strength of his plea.

In addition to the allegations above referred to, the plea avers…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. International Textbook Co. v. PiggSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
  2. Binderup v. Pathe Exchange, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1923
  3. United Shoe MacHinery Corp. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
  4. Browning v. City of WaycrossSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
  5. Butler Bros. Shoe Co. v. United States Rubber Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1907

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Goodwin Brothers Leasing, Inc. v. NousisMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1977
  2. Nuckols v. AtheyWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1964
  3. Walter E. Heller & Co. of California v. StephensNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1968
  4. Blooming Rose Coal Co. v. WhiteWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1946
  5. C. C. Leasing Corp. v. City of RichmondRichmond City Circuit Court · 1973

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

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

Powered by the Exa API