From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ultramar Co. v. Minerals Separation, Ltd.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Oct 16, 1923
236 N.Y. 647 (N.Y. 1923)

Opinion

Argued October 1, 1923

Decided October 16, 1923

Emil Goldmark and Alfred A. Cook for appellant.

Lindell T. Bates for respondent.


We think the defendant, Minerals Separation, Limited, a British corporation, was not engaged in business in this state at the time of the service of the summons ( Tauza v. Susquehanna Coal Co., 220 N.Y. 259; Holzer v. Dodge Bros., 233 N.Y. 216).

The facts on which this conclusion is founded have been fully stated in the opinion of the Special Term, and no useful purpose would be promoted if they were to be repeated here.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, and that of the Special Term affirmed, with costs in the Appellate Division and in this court; the first question certified should be answered in the negative; and it is unnecessary to answer the second question.

HISCOCK, Ch. J., HOGAN, CARDOZO, POUND, McLAUGHLIN, CRANE and ANDREWS, JJ., concur.

Order reversed, etc.


Summaries of

Ultramar Co. v. Minerals Separation, Ltd.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Oct 16, 1923
236 N.Y. 647 (N.Y. 1923)
Case details for

Ultramar Co. v. Minerals Separation, Ltd.

Case Details

Full title:ULTRAMAR COMPANY, LIMITED, Respondent, v . MINERALS SEPARATION, LIMITED…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Oct 16, 1923

Citations

236 N.Y. 647 (N.Y. 1923)
142 N.E. 319

Citing Cases

COMPANIA MEXICANA, ETC., v. COMPANIA MET., ETC

The latest authorities clearly sustain the defendant's theory. ( Ultramar Co., Ltd., v. Minerals Separation,…

Stark v. Howe Sound Co., Inc.

We do not hold that industrial company is doing business here merely because of this relationship between it…