[Trade Journal]
Publication: New York Supplement
St. Paul, MN, United States
vol. 234, p. 1,329, col. 1
THE
NEW YORK SUPPLEMENT
VOLUME 234
·
·
HEMINGRAY GLASS CO. v. WILKENFELD BROS., Inc.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. April 29, 1929.
Judgment 181 — Separate defense alleging plaintiff to be foreign corporation doing business in state without authority raised triable question precluding summary judgment.
Separate defense alleging plaintiff to be a foreign corporation doing business in state without authority raised question on which defendant was entitled to a trial, and order granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was improper.
Action by the Hemingray Glass Company against Wilkenfeld Bros., Inc. From an order granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and from the judgment entered thereon, defendant appeals. Reversed on the law and facts, and motion denied.
Argued before LAZANSKY, P. J., and RICH, KAPPER, HAGARTY, and SCUDDER, JJ.
PER CURIAM. Order granting summary judgment and judgment entered thereon reversed upon the law and the facts, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with $10 costs, upon the ground that the separate defense contained in the answer, alleging plaintiff to be a foreign corporation and doing business in this state without authority, raises a question upon which the defendant is entitled to a trial.
·
·
