Adler v. Order of American Fraternal Circle of Baltimore City

New York Supreme Court

Adler v. Order of American Fraternal Circle of Baltimore City

19 N.Y.S. 885, 28 Abb. N. Cas. 233

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedMay 15, 1892

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 19 N.Y.S. 885 (Adler v. Order of American Fraternal Circle of Baltimore City) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adler v. Order of American Fraternal Circle of Baltimore City, 19 N.Y.S. 885, 28 Abb. N. Cas. 233 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

Ingraham, J.

In an action of this character, by section 1780 of the Code, this court has jurisdiction in an action against a foreign corporation only when it appears that the plaintiff is a resident of this state, or where it appears that the action is brought to recover damages for breach of a contract made within this state, or where the cause of action arose within the state. To give the court jurisdiction to grant an attachment it must appear by affidavit that a cause of action exists in favor of plaintiff against defendant, and the general term of this court has held that, unless the facts appear in the affidavit that give the court jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the action, the judge has no jurisdiction to grant the attachment. Oliver v. Manufacturing Co., (Sup.) 10 N. Y. Supp. 771. This is distinct from the court acquiring jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. Unless the facts appear to bring the case within section 1780 of the Code, the court has no jurisdiction over the subject-matter, and there is therefore no cause of action alleged. This is jurisdictional, and cannot be cured by amendments. The motion must therefore be granted, and the attachment vacated; $10 costs to abide the event.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Ingraham, J.

In an action of this character, by section 1780 of the Code, this court has jurisdiction in an action against a foreign corporation only when it appears that the plaintiff is a resident of this state, or where it appears that the action is brought to recover damages for breach of a contract made within this state, or where the cause of action arose within the state. To give the court jurisdiction to grant an attachment it must appear by affidavit that a cause of action exists in favor of plaintiff against defendant, and the general term of this court has held that, unless the facts appear in the affidavit that give the court jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the action, the judge has no jurisdiction to grant the attachment. Oliver v. Manufacturing Co., (Sup.) 10 N. Y. Supp. 771. This is distinct from the court acquiring jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. Unless the facts appear to bring the case within section 1780 of the Code, the court has no jurisdiction over the subject-matter, and there is therefore no cause of action alleged. This is jurisdictional, and cannot be cured by amendments. The motion must therefore be granted, and the attachment vacated; $10 costs to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 N.Y.S. 885, 28 Abb. N. Cas. 233, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adler-v-order-of-american-fraternal-circle-of-baltimore-city-nysupct-1892.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack