
    The Harris Automatic Press Co., Respondent, v. The Demarest Pattern Co., Appellant.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term,
    June, 1905.)
    Chattel mortgage — Right to foreclose — Pleading — Answer of corporation— Plaintiff’s right to sue — Waiver.
    A chattel mortgage need not declare that the mortgagee’s right to foreclose upon default is not taken away by a provision for entry, possession and sale upon default in the payments of any of the installments therein conditioned to be paid.
    A defendant answering the complaint of a foreign corporation by a general denial upon information and belief, even as to its own incorporation, waives its right to raise the question of plaintiff’s right to sue because it failed to plead its compliance with the law regarding permission to do business in this State.
    Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the City Court of the city of New York, entered in favor of the plaintiff after trial without a jury.
    
      Benjamin Franklin, for appellant.
    Chrystie, Brightman & Douglas (Archibald Douglas, of counsel), for respondent.
   MacLean, J.

On December 10, 1903, the defendant executed and delivered to the plaintiff a chattel mortgage, providing for entry, possession, and sale upon default in the payment of any of the installments therein conditioned, at stated times, to be paid. The defendant thereafter defaulted, the plaintiff, as was its right, foreclosed, a right not taken from it by provision for sale under the power mentioned (Briggs v. Oliver, 68 N. Y. 336, 339), and it was not necessary that the mortgage should so declare. Bragelman v. Daue, 69 N. Y. 69, 74. Nor was it reversible fault that the plaintiff, a foreign corporation, failed to plead its compliance with our laws in regard to permission to do business here, for the defendant, answering with a general denial upon information and belief, even as to its own incorporation, waived its right to raise the'question. C. R. Parmele Co. v. Haas, 171 N. Y. 519, 583.

The judgment should, therefore, be affirmed.

Scott and Dtgro, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.  