Barnett v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Barnett v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.

32 Misc. 98, 65 N.Y.S. 509

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 15, 1900

StatusPublished

This text of 32 Misc. 98 (Barnett v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barnett v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co., 32 Misc. 98, 65 N.Y.S. 509 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The brief of the appellant states 'that this appeal was taken in order to raise the point that there is no proof in the case that the defendant was at the time of the accident, a domestic corporation, with its principal place of business in the city of New York, and that, therefore, the plaintiff has failed to show that the defendant was within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Court of New York. Since the appeal was taken, the plaintiff has served upon the defendant a notice that she would produce before this Appellate Term a certified copy of the certificate of incorporation of the defendant, in order to support the judgment. This the plaintiff had a right to do. It may be that the court could take judicial notice of the fact that the defendant is a domestic corporation, and that its principal place of business is in the city of New York, but, in any event, it has frequently been held that an omission, in proof, of a matter of record may be supplied on appeal to sustain a judgment, when a record cannot be answered or changed. Dunford v. Weaver, 84 N. Y. 445; Day v. Town of New Lots, 107 id. 148; Dunham v. Townshend, 118 id. 281.

Judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs.

Present: Truax, P. J., Scott and Dugro, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

The brief of the appellant states 'that this appeal was taken in order to raise the point that there is no proof in the case that the defendant was at the time of the accident, a domestic corporation, with its principal place of business in the city of New York, and that, therefore, the plaintiff has failed to show that the defendant was within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Court of New York. Since the appeal was taken, the plaintiff has served upon the defendant a notice that she would produce before this Appellate Term a certified copy of the certificate of incorporation of the defendant, in order to support the judgment. This the plaintiff had a right to do. It may be that the court could take judicial notice of the fact that the defendant is a domestic corporation, and that its principal place of business is in the city of New York, but, in any event, it has frequently been held that an omission, in proof, of a matter of record may be supplied on appeal to sustain a judgment, when a record cannot be answered or changed. Dunford v. Weaver, 84 N. Y. 445; Day v. Town of New Lots, 107 id. 148; Dunham v. Townshend, 118 id. 281.

Judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs.

Present: Truax, P. J., Scott and Dugro, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 Misc. 98, 65 N.Y.S. 509, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barnett-v-metropolitan-street-railway-co-nyappterm-1900.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack