Can an additional defendant be added to a company that was incorporated under a foreign statute?

This added defendant cannot claim any benefit from those statutes. Under what jurisdiction or legislation or mode it has received recognition does not appear. It is stated in the evidence of Thomas J. Gaytee that it is a corporation under the laws of the state of Minnesota. I have no evidence of the law of that state. It would be clearly wrong to hold that a doctrine of English law applicable to a company incorporated under local statutes is applicable without more to a company incorporated under a foreign statute. If authority be needed, see Bulkeley v. Schultz (1871) L.R. 3 P.C. 764, at 769, 8 Moo. P.C. (N.S.) 170. It may well be that in the state of Minnesota the English device of incorporating an alter ego for oneself in business ventures has not been adopted. Thomas J. Gaytee is not shown to be an expert on matters of the law of Minnesota. From the whole tenor of the examination it may be inferred that an association of shareholders described as “incorporated” has, under some form of enactment peculiar to the law of Minnesota, been created. Beyond that there is no evidence. It is not “within the purview” of the statute.