
    Russell E. Hamlin et al., Doing Business under the Firm Name of Hamlin Brothers, Appellants, v. G. E. Barrett & Company, Inc., Defendant, and The Belamose Corporation, Respondent.
    
      Jurisdiction — corporations — foreign corporation not doing business within State — service of summons properly set aside.
    
    
      Hamlin v. Barrett & Co., Inc., 220 App. Div. 763, affirmed.
    (Argued October 6, 1927;
    decided October 25, 1927.)
    Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered May 27, 1927, which reversed an order of Special Term denying a motion to set aside and vacate the service of the summons on defendant, respondent, and granted said motion. Respondent is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Connecticut and owning and operating a factory in that State. It has no office or place of business in the State of New York. It does not now nor has it ever carried on business within the State. It has never taken out a certificate to do business, nor applied for such certificate, and has no bank account, no money or property of any kind within the State. Its selling agent, however, maintains an office in the city of New York and has placed respondent’s name on the door and listed it in the telephone directory. The following question was certified: “ Was the defendant The Belamose Corporation, at the time of the service of the summons herein, doing business within the State of New York within the meaning of section 47 of the General Corporation Law? ”
    
      Robert P. Patterson and William J. Carr for appellants.
    
      Sherman Baldwin for respondent.
   Order affirmed, with costs; question certified answered in the negative; no opinion.

Concur: Cardozo, Ch. J., Pound, Crane, Andrews, Kellogg and O’Brien, JJ. Not sitting: Lehman, J.  