AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges

ULTRAMAR COMPANY, LIMITED, Respondent, v. MINERALS SEPARATION, LIMITED, Appellant, Impleaded with Another.

Per Curiam.

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.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

ULTRAMAR COMPANY, LIMITED v. MINERALS SEPARATION, LTD
(Oct 16, 1923)