
    The Western National Bank of Louisville, Appellant, v. Thomas Kelly, Respondent.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term,
    October, 1905.)
    Foreign corporations — Powers, duties, rights and liabilities — Right to sue — Banking Law, § 31 — Municipal Court Act, § r8.
    The mere bringing of an action by a foreign corporation upon a promissory note is not doing business within the provision of the Banking Law (L. 1892, ch. 689, § 31) that no foreign corporation, incorporated for the purpose of carrying on the business specified in articles 5, 6, and 7 of said law, shall transact business in this State without the written certificate of the superintendent of banks.
    The right of a foreign corporation, authorized to do business in this State, to maintain an action, in like manner and subject to the same regulations as a domestic corporation, is not affected by the extension of the jurisdiction of the Municipal Court (Municipal Court Act, § 18; L. 1902, ch. 580) to actions against foreign corporations having an office in the city of New York.
    Appeal from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, Seventh District, borough of Manhattan, in favor of the defendant.
    Floyd & Leary, for appellant.
    Thomas R. Lane, for respondent.
   Fitzgerald, J.;

Plaintiff, a foreign corporation, instituted this action upon a promissory note claimed to have been given by the defendant to L. Oppenheimer & Co. and transferred to it for value. Complaint was dismissed upon the. grounds that it was not shown that plaintiff had an office for the transaction of business in the city of New York, nor that the certificate required by section 31 of the Banking Law (L. 1892, ch. 689) had been filed.

In Citizens’ State Bank v. Cowles, 89 App. Div. 281, it was directly held: “ that the mere bringing of an action to recover a sum of money upon a negotiable instrument is not doing business within this State,” and; although this case was reversed upon another point in the Court of Appeals, the court did not disapprove the proposition above cited. 180 N. Y. 346. Section 1779, Code of Civil Procedure, provides, that An action may be maintained by a foreign corporation, in like manner, and subject to the same regulations, as where the action is brought by a domestic corporation.” The extension of jurisdiction to actions against foreign corporations having an office in the city of New York, conferred by section 1 of subdivision 18 of the Municipal Court Act (L. 1902, ch. 580), cannot well be twisted into a limitation of former rights — confers additional power. It does not limit, alter or effect former jurisdiction, except to the extent expressly enacted.

Parmele Co. v. Haas, 67 App. Div. 457, was reversed by the Court of Appeals, 171 N. Y. 579, upon the very point upon which it is cited to sustain the judgment herein.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Scott and Bischoff, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.  