Legal Opinion
New York Automatic Canteen Corp. v. Keepel & Ruof, Inc.
City of New York Municipal Court
Decided June 8, 1949PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Max J. Woree,
Beferee. The defendant is a Pennsylvania corporation which is not authorized to do business in New York, not having complied with the provisions of section 210 of the General Corporation Law. It has moved to vacate service upon it of the summons in this action and asserts (1) that it is not present in this jurisdiction and (2) that the person who was served with the summons was not its managing agent within the meaning of subdivision 3 of section 229 of the Civil Practice Act.
The evidence showed that the defendant has an office for the transaction of business in Lancaster,…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Tauza v. . Susquehanna Coal Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1917
- International Harvester Co. of America v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 1914
- United States v. Scophony Corp. of AmericaSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
- Bomze v. Nardis Sportswear, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1948
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Gertsenstein v. Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co.City of New York Municipal Court · 1952
- Shawe v. Wendy Wilson, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1959