Stricks v. Siegal

The second defense is sufficient. On this motion the question of the meaning of the New Jersey statute pleaded was one of law. (Hanna v. Lichtenhein, 225 N. Y. 579.) Therefore, under the rules of construction followed in this State, the prohibited corporate acts are deemed void without being expressly so declared by the statute, (Crocker v. Whitney, 71 N. Y. 161, 170; Bath Gas Bight Co. v. Claffy, 151 id. 24.) If it be established as a fact on the trial that the New Jersey law creates an estoppel against such a defense unless the status quo ante is restored, a different result would be…