169 N.Y. 506, Anglo-American Provision Co. v. Davis Provision Co.

Citation:169 N.Y. 506
Party Name:ANGLO-AMERICAN PROVISION COMPANY, Appellant, v. DAVIS PROVISION COMPANY, Respondent.
Case Date:January 28, 1902
Court:New York Court of Appeals
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 506

169 N.Y. 506

ANGLO-AMERICAN PROVISION COMPANY, Appellant,

v.

DAVIS PROVISION COMPANY, Respondent.

New York Court of Appeal

January 28, 1902

Argued January 9, 1902.

Page 507

COUNSEL

Henry Wilson Bridges for appellant. The cause of action arises within this state. (Reed v. Chilson, 40 N.Y. S. R. 961; Merritt v. Fowler, 76 Hun, 424; G. P. Co. v. Mayor, etc., 108 N.Y. 276; Nazro v. McC. O. Co., 36 Hun, 296; Bk. of Commerce v. R. & W. R. R. Co., 10 How. Pr. 1; Burchle v. Eckhart, 3 N.Y. 132; Shumway v. Stillman, 6 Wend. 447; L. Ins. Co. v. French, 18 How. Pr. 404; McCartney v. Bostwick, 32 N.Y. 64; Perry v. E. T. Co., 22 Civ. Pro. Rep. 178.)

Page 508

This action falls within the terms and meaning of the United States Constitution. (Const. of U.S. art. 4, § 1; C. C. Bank v. Lowery, 93 U.S. 72; Mills v. Duryee, 7 Cranch, 485; Christmas v. Russell, 5 Wall. 290; M. L. Ins. Co. v. Harris, 97 U.S. 331; Hampton v. McConnel, 3 Wheat. 234; Nazro v. McC. O. Co., 36 Hun, 296; M'Elmoyle v. Cohen, 13 Pet. 312; Armstrong v. Carson, 2 Dall. 302; Nations v. Johnson, 24 How. Pr. 195; A. A. P. Co. v. D. P. Co., 105 F. 536.)

Frank E. Smith for respondent. The cause of action upon the Illinois judgment did not arise within this state. (O'Brien v. Young, 95 N.Y. 428; Morley v. L. & M. S. R. R. Co., 146 U.S. 162; Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113; Black on Judgments, 7, 10; Hibernia Bank v. Lacombe, 84 N.Y. 367; Barnes v. Kenyon, 2 Johns. Cas. 381; Campbell v. C. & S. L. R. R. Co., 18 How. Pr. 412; Thelwall v. Yelverton, 16 C. B. [ N. S.] 813; Fanning v. Consequa, 17 Johns. 511.) Section 1780 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not repugnant to the Federal Constitution. (Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co., 127 U.S. 265, 291; Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U.S. 657, 685; Hancock Nat. Bank v. Farnum, 176 U.S. 640; Lynde v. Lynde, 181 U.S. 183; W. P. O. Co. v. Texas, 177 U.S. 28, 45; People v. Fire Assn., 92 N.Y. 311, 325; People ex rel. v. Wemple, 131 N.Y. 64, 70; Robinson v. O S. N. Co., 112 N.Y. 315.)

GRAY, J.

The plaintiff and the defendant are foreign corporations, organized under the laws of the State of Illinois, and the action is brought upon a judgment; which is alleged in the complaint to have been recovered against the defendant in a court of general jurisdiction, within that state. The cause of action, however, upon which the judgment was rendered, is not set forth. The defendant demurred to the complaint; specifying, as grounds, a want of jurisdiction in the court, as to the person of the defendant and as to the subject-matter, and that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute

Page 509

a cause of action. The demurrer has been sustained below and the complaint was dismissed.

Upon the appeal, which the plaintiff now takes to this court from the judgment of dismissal, we have presented questions of the construction which is to be given to the provisions of section 1780 of our Code of Civil Procedure and of how far its provisions are affected, or controlled, by section I of article IV of the Constitution of the United States.

Section 1780 provides that, 'an action against a foreign corporation may be maintained by another foreign corporation, * * * in one of the following cases only: * * * 3. Where the cause of action arose within the state.'

The demurrer admits the recovery of a valid judgment and I shall assume that it was upon a cause of action generally valid. The questions are both interesting and important; but I think that the legal principles, which should guide...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP