Hargraves Mills v. Harden
New York Supreme Court
PlAnraEF sought to recover damages for a breach of a contract of sale of merchandise to be manufactured. It appeared that plaintiff was a foreign corporation and that the goods, the subject of sale, were to be manufactured at defendant’s mills in Fall River, Mass. The sale was through bought-and-sold notes, a broker representing both. It was conceded that plaintiff had not complied with the statutory provisions regarding foreign corporations, referred to in the memorandum.
Read the full summary
PlAnraEF sought to recover damages for a breach of a contract of sale of merchandise to be manufactured. It appeared that plaintiff was a foreign corporation and that the goods, the subject of sale, were to be manufactured at defendant’s mills in Fall River, Mass. The sale was through bought-and-sold notes, a broker representing both. It was conceded that plaintiff had not complied with the statutory provisions regarding foreign corporations, referred to in the memorandum. The complaint was dismissed for the failure to prove compliance with the statute, and a motion entered for a new trial.
1Opinion of the CourtDugro, J.
This state cannot prohibit a foreign corporation from selling within the state merchandise to be manufactured without the state; nor can it impose conditions which operate directly upon such a sale, so as to be a burden (see grounds of Mr. Justice Matthews, in Cooper Mfg. Co. v. Ferguson, 113 U. S. 727; Gunn v. White S. M. Co., 57 Ark. 36; 10 Misc. Rep. 553; 32 N. Y. Supp. 492; 120 U. S. 489; Commerce Clause of the Federal Constitution-, by Prentice & Egan, 27, .28, 30; 178 and 195); nor can it deny to such corporation the right to maintain an -action upon such a contract of sale until the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Robbins v. Shelby County Taxing DistrictSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Smith v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Cooper Manufacturing Co. v. FergusonSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining & Milling Co. v. PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Murphy Varnish Co. v. ConnellNew York Supreme Court · 1894
3Cited by4 opinions
- Berger v. Pennsylvania Railroad CompanySupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1906
- Harvard Co. v. WichtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1904
- Crocker v. MullerAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1903
- Traphagen v. LindsayNebraska Supreme Court · 1914