Ultramar Company, Limited v. . Minerals Separation, Ltd.
Cases that cite this one
10 later published cases cite this decision.
- Compania Mexicana Refinadora Island, S. A. v. Compania Metropolitana de Oleoductos, S. A. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1928)
- Stark v. Howe Sound Co. (New York Supreme Court 1931)
- Wilcox-Gay Corp. v. Hosho of America, Inc. (New York Supreme Court 1959)
- Molina v. Hydraulic Press Manufacturing Co. (New York Supreme Court 1956)
- In re the Estate of Steinberg (New York Surrogate's Court 1934)
- People ex rel. Terminals & Transporation Corp. of America v. State Tax Commission (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1930)
- Compania Mexicana Refinadora Island v. Compania Metropolitana De Oleoductos (N.Y. 1928)
- Worcester v. Nordyke & Marmon Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1925)
- Jones v. Stefco Steel Co. (New York Supreme Court 1925)
- Hewitt v. Canadian Pacific Railway Co. (New York Supreme Court 1924)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
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 *648 certified should be answered in the negative; and it is unnecessary to answer the second question.
Order reversed, etc.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.