Summary
In Healy v. Deering, 231 Ill. 423, 83 N.E. 26, 121 Am.St.Rep. 331, the City adopted an ordinance vacating the street and the decree was entered in pursuance of that ordinance.
Summary of this case from RHEINBERGER v. SECURITY LIFE INS. CO. OF AMOpinion
Submitted October 22, 1907
Decided December 17, 1907
Mortimer M. Menken for appellant. John D. Lannon for respondent.
The respondent has not asked that this appeal be dismissed, or made any objection to its being heard in this court upon the merits. During the consultations among the members of the court it has been suggested that the appeal cannot be heard in this court without a case prepared and settled by or under the direction of the court below and annexed to the judgment roll "containing a concise statement of the facts, of the questions of law arising thereupon, and of the determination of those questions by the Appellate Division." Such a case must be prepared and settled and a certified copy thereof transmitted to the Court of Appeals instead of the case upon which the judgment of the court below was rendered when a verdict is rendered in the trial court subject to the opinion of the Appellate Division. (Code Civil Procedure, sec. 1339.) The only authority for directing a jury to render a verdict subject to the opinion of the court is found in section 1185 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides: "Where, upon the trial of an issue by a jury, the case presents only questions of law, the judge may direct the jury to render a verdict, subject to the opinion of the court." That section also provides: "Notwithstanding that such a verdict has been rendered, the judge holding the trial term may, at the same term, set aside the verdict, and direct judgment to be entered for either party, with like effect and in like manner, as if such a direction had been given at the trial."
A motion for judgment upon a verdict subject to the opinion of the court may be made by either party, and must be heard and decided at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court. (Code Civil Procedure, sec. 1234.) In such a case the practice prescribed by said section 1339 must be followed or the appeal will be dismissed. ( People v. Featherly, 131 N.Y. 597; Cowenhoven v. Ball, 118 N.Y. 231; Jaycox v. Cameron, 49 N.Y. 645.)
The verdict in this case was not rendered subject to the opinion of the court. Even the application to have the defendant's exceptions heard in the first instance in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, pursuant to section 1000 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was denied. After the verdict was rendered a motion was made pursuant to and upon the grounds stated in section 999 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which motion was entertained, and the decision thereof was subsequently announced by the trial judge in a formal opinion. By the express language of said section 999, it was necessary that the appeal taken from the order made upon the motion be heard upon a case prepared and settled in the usual manner. Such a case was prepared and settled in the usual manner. The appeal from the order setting aside the verdict was heard thereon. The appeal to this court is from the judgment entered upon the verdict pursuant to the order of the Appellate Division reversing the order setting aside the verdict and denying the motion to set the same aside. (Code Civil Procedure, sec. 1336.) The appeal should not be dismissed. The constitutional and statutory limitation of the jurisdiction of this court to the review of question of law does not prevent this court from an examination of the record to ascertain whether the verdict rendered is contrary to law.
The statutes of this state prescribe in detail what must be done to organize a domestic corporation. They direct the filing of certain papers and the paying of certain taxes and fees. The articles of incorporation become a matter of public record and the rights, duties and powers of the corporation thus formed, and the obligations of its officers and directors, are all defined by our statutes. There are also certain requirements of law which must be complied with before a foreign corporation is authorized to do business in this state. It is provided by section 15 of the General Corporation Law: "No foreign stock corporation other than a monied corporation, shall do business in this state without having first procured from the secretary of state a certificate that it has complied with all the requirements of law to authorize it to do business in this state, and that the business of the corporation to be carried on in this state is such as may be lawfully carried on by a corporation incorporated under the laws of this state for such or similar business, * * *." It is provided by section 16 of the General Corporation Law that "Before granting such certificate the secretary of state shall require every such foreign corporation to file in his office a sworn copy in the English language of its charter or certificate of incorporation, and a statement under its corporate seal, particularly setting forth the business or objects of the corporation which it is engaged in carrying on or which it proposes to carry on within the state, and a place within the state which is to be its principal place of business, and designating, in the manner prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure, a person upon whom process against the corporation may be served within the state. * * *"
After a foreign corporation is authorized to do business within this state it is required to make an annual report the same as a domestic stock corporation (Stock Corporation Law, sec. 30), and it is subject to our laws and to service of process in this state. It is also provided by said section 15 of the General Corporation Law that "No foreign stock corporation doing business in this state shall maintain any action in this state upon any contract made by it in this state unless prior to the making of such contract it shall have procured such certificate."
The plaintiff has not procured such certificate. If, therefore, it is a foreign stock corporation doing business in this state, and the contract of insurance is a contract made by it in this state, it cannot maintain this action. It is not an answer to the position of the defendant to say that his defense is technical because if the plaintiff comes within the provisions of the statutes quoted the defense is interposed in accordance with the express policy of this state. Foreign corporations doing business in this state should comply with the laws of this state. As we have seen, it is alleged in the complaint that the plaintiff is engaged in the business of manufacturing and dealing in fish fertilizer in this state. It appears further from the record that the plaintiff maintains but a nominal office in New Jersey at the house of its president. Its capital is invested in its plant and manufacturing business at Fire Island Beach, in this state, and had been so invested for about a year prior to the making of the contract of insurance. The business of the plaintiff other than that done at the factory is done in part at the office of the president of the corporation, in the city of New York, and in part at the office of the treasurer of the corporation, which is also in the city of New York. The letter paper of the plaintiff bears the name "South Bay Company, Treasurer's Office, No. 138 Front Street, New York." That the plaintiff is a stock corporation is shown beyond controversy by the nature and character of its business. The plaintiff could not have been organized to do the business in which it is engaged under either article of the Membership Corporations Law. It is provided by section 30 of the Membership Corporations Law (L. 1895, chap. 559), that "A membership corporation may be created under this article (Art. 2) for any lawful purpose, except a purpose for which a corporation may be created under any other article of this chapter, or any other general law than this chapter." The plaintiff could have been incorporated in this state as a stock corporation and it could not have been incorporated in this state for manufacturing purposes under the Membership Corporations Law. It will be assumed that its incorporation in another state was for the purpose of exercising the rights and performing the work in which it was engaged for pecuniary profit. It appears from the complaint and also from the record of the trial that the policy of insurance was headed "Home Office, New York City," and the attestation clause recites that it was subscribed "at the City of New York." There is nothing in the record to overcome the presumption that the contract of insurance was delivered in the city of New York.
The contract of insurance covered the real and personal property constituting the plant upon and with which the plaintiff prosecuted its ordinary business, and such contract of insurance was incidental to and a part of the plaintiff's doing business in this state.
As the plaintiff is doing business in this state it cannot "maintain any action in this state upon any contract made by it in this state unless prior to the making of such contract it shall have procured such certificate."
The judgment should be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event.
This court has no jurisdiction to hear this appeal upon the record now before us and the appeal should be dismissed.
The reasons for this conclusion I will now state in as brief a manner as possible.
The jurisdiction of this court is limited to questions of law arising upon settled facts or upon exceptions. Unless the facts are settled by the verdict of a jury or the findings of some court it is not within the province of this court to grope through the evidence and pick up a statement or a circumstance here and there and find the facts for itself like a court of original jurisdiction. If no facts have been found by the courts below or any conclusions of law stated, there is nothing for this court to examine. This court cannot pass upon the appeal in this case without resolving itself into a trial court for the determination of the facts. It must either take to itself the powers of a trial court or assume the functions of a jury, and that it is prohibited from doing.
This action was brought to recover upon a policy of insurance whereby the New York Lloyds insured the plaintiff's property to the extent of fifteen hundred dollars against destruction by fire. The defendant stands in the place of and represents the insurers. The pleadings in the case presented questions of fact and incidentally questions of law to be determined, none of which have yet been determined in such a manner as to authorize this court to review the case. The situation is this: The parties went to trial upon the pleadings before the court and a jury and a trial was had. At the close of the trial the learned judge directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $116. There was no exception taken to this direction and no request to submit any question to the jury. Subsequently, on a motion for a new trial, he set aside the verdict so directed and directed a new trial; so that up to this point it is very plain that nothing had been determined. The parties were left in just the position that they were in before the trial commenced.
But the plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Division from the action of the learned trial judge in setting aside his own decision directing a verdict. That appeal was heard and the learned court below reversed the order of the learned trial judge setting aside the verdict which he had himself directed and denied the motion for a new trial; thus leaving in force the original direction of a verdict for the plaintiff by the learned trial judge. It is very apparent, therefore, that not a single fact necessary to the decision of this case has yet been found, and as already stated, this court can only pass upon the case by groping through the record to find from the evidence what the real facts are. In other words, it can get at the facts only by assuming the functions of a trial court clothed with the power to determine the issues. It is necessary in order to decide the case to determine, in some conclusive way, either by a verdict or some specific finding, what the facts are.
There can be no doubt that it was of the first importance in this case to determine where the contract of insurance was made and it was made at the place where delivered. There is no proof whatever as to where it was delivered, whether by mail or otherwise. The plaintiff's principal office was in New Jersey and whether it was delivered at the principal office or at some other office is a fact not found. But it is said that inasmuch as the policy is headed "Home Office, New York City," and subscribed at the city of New York it can be presumed that it was there delivered. Now, that is a presumption that possibly might have some weight with a jury or a trial court, but this court cannot say that it amounts to a conclusive finding of fact, upon which this court can act. The caption of a contract, whatever it may be, or the date or the place where signed by one of the parties, does not prove, by any means, conclusively the place where the contract was made. The contract was not signed nor executed by the plaintiff and it became operative only when delivered and the place of the delivery is an important question of fact in this case and this court is not clothed with the functions of determining the fact from evidence.
So it was also an important question of fact in this case to determine whether the plaintiff was a stock corporation or something else; but it is said that it appearing from the evidence that it was engaged in the business of manufacturing fertilizers, that that proof is equivalent to a conclusive finding that it was a stock corporation. Not at all. A stock corporation is defined by section three of the General Corporation Law as a corporation having a capital stock which is authorized by law to distribute dividends upon surplus profits. The mere fact that the company may have issued certificates of stock does not prove that it was authorized by law to make dividends. We have not the plaintiff's charter before us or any of the certificates issued, and, hence, we can have no conclusive knowledge as to whether this is a stock corporation or not. Here again it is proper to say that this circumstance would be very proper for a jury or a trial court to consider and might be held to be very persuasive in determining the fact, but the difficulty is this court does not possess the powers of a jury or of a trial court. So also it was an important fact to determine whether the plaintiff had ever procured the receipt required by the Tax Law. In other words, whether it had paid the tax or not. It could not pay the tax until it was assessed, and how do we know whether it ever was assessed. The defendant alleges that it was not paid, but there is no conclusive finding in the case that it ever was assessed or the time when it was assessed, or the amount of the tax, and the circumstance that the defendant alleges it in its answer does not prove it. These were all matters of fact which this court is seeking to determine for itself from the evidence.
The verdict directed against the defendant was for $116, and if it desires to resist its liability to pay that small sum upon technical defenses that have no relation to the merits then it ought to be required to pursue correct practice and not ask this court to become a court of original jurisdiction to read the evidence and find the facts.
It is very plain to my mind that the defendant has neglected to pursue the proper practice in order to obtain a hearing in this court. That practice is described very clearly in section 1339 of the Code. It is there enacted that where an appeal is brought to this court in a case like this, and has been perfected, a special case must be made by or under the direction of the Appellate Division. That special case must contain a concise statement of the facts and questions of law arising thereon and the determination of those questions by the Appellate Division. It was for the defendant to prepare that special case and have it settled before it could properly come here. This case, when settled by the court below, is to be annexed to the judgment roll, and when that is done this court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal, but not until then. Whatever may be the probative force of the evidence in the record with respect to the facts, whether conclusive or otherwise, makes no difference. We must take the facts and the questions of law decided, not from the evidence, but from the case which the Appellate Division is required to send here. That is what this court has held in at least three unanimous decisions. ( People v. Featherly, 131 N.Y. 597; Cowenhoven v. Ball, 118 N.Y. 231; Jaycox v. Cameron, 49 N.Y. 645; Reinmiller v. Skidmore, 59 N.Y. 661.) The learned trial judge did not make the direction subject to the opinion of the Appellate Division, but it was subject to a review by himself, and such review was had. It makes no difference whether the directed verdict was disturbed by the trial judge himself or by the Appellate Division. The clear purpose of the section was to enable this court to exercise its legitimate powers, namely, the decision of questions of law arising upon exceptions or upon settled facts, and to relieve this court from the necessity of reading the evidence in a record in order to find facts upon which to apply the law. I am, therefore, in favor of dismissing the appeal, with costs.
CULLEN, Ch. J., GRAY, VANN, WERNER and WILLARD BARTLETT, JJ., concur with CHASE, J.; O'BRIEN, J., reads dissenting opinion.
Judgment reversed, etc.