People ex Rel. Hodkinson Corporation v. Cantor

3 Citing cases

  1. Mortgage Corporation of New York v. Graves

    262 App. Div. 421 (N.Y. App. Div. 1941)

    That this means that only corporations actually doing business, regardless of the purpose of organization, are subject to section 187 is supported by adequate authority even if the language of the statute were sufficiently ambiguous to require interpretation. (See People ex rel. Goodwin Sand Gravel Co. v. Law, 207 App. Div. 567; People ex rel. ButtericlCo. v. Gilchrist, 213 id. 533, at pp. 536, 537; affd., 241 N.Y. 591; People ex rel. Hodkinson Corporation v. Cantor, 119 Misc. 604; affd., 206 App. Div. 698.) If the rule were otherwise this corporation would not only escape taxation itself but the door would be open to a great field of corporate tax evasion.

  2. City of New York v. Hodkinson Corporation

    218 App. Div. 116 (N.Y. App. Div. 1926)

    The certiorari proceeding came on for trial at Special Term where it was decided upon the evidence that the defendant was not a manufacturing or mercantile corporation included within the provisions of article 9-A of the Tax Law, nor was it entitled to exemption from local assessment by section 219-j of that article (as amd. by Laws of 1918, chap. 271), and the writ was dismissed and the assessment confirmed. ( People ex rel. Hodkinson Corp. v. Cantor, 119 Misc. 604.) The defendant then appealed from the order entered therein to this court which unanimously affirmed such order.

  3. Ministers Baptist Convention v. McKay

    64 Misc. 2d 231 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1970)   Cited 2 times

    Thereafter, the Second Department, in Matter of Moses ( 138 App. Div. 525, 529, 532), agreeing with the view taken by the court in White as to the corporate charter being controlling, was nevertheless of the opinion that proof could be received of the character of the work undertaken by the corporation pursuant to its powers (pp. 529-530). In another case ( People ex rel. Hodkinson Corp. v. Cantor, 119 Misc. 604, 606, affd. without opn., 206 App. Div. 698 [1st Dept.]), the court refused to limit itself to the certificate of incorporation, and said that "the test is what the company actually does, not what it is authorized to do". There is thus a seeming conflict in the New York cases.