Legal Opinion
Hubbard, Westervelt & Mottelay, Inc. v. Harsh Building Co.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided November 30, 1967PublishedCited by 20 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtCapozzoli, J.
This suit is based on a promissory note which was executed and delivered by the defendant-appellant in Phoenix, Arizona, in the amount of $25,194, payable to plaintiff, in New York, in seven installments. The note was given for services rendered by plaintiff in obtaining a mortgage commitment from a bank, located in New York, to finance the purchase and development of property in Arizona.
The plaintiff is a New York corporation. Defendant is an Oregon corporation, has no place of business in New York and is not authorized to do business here. The court below held the service of process on the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Hanson v. DencklaSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
- McGee v. International Life InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- G. Benedict Corp. v. EpsteinNew York Supreme Court · 1965
- Franklin National Bank v. ChambersNew York District Court · 1967
3Cited by20 opinions
- Sterling National Bank and Trust Co. Of New York v. Fidelity Mortgage InvestorsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1975
- Scott C. Savin v. Harry H. RanierCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1990
- Plaza Realty Investors v. BaileyDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1979
- First City Federal Savings Bank v. DennisDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1988
- National American Corp. v. Federal Republic of NigeriaDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1977
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.