Chavin v. Smith

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Chavin v. Smith

28 Misc. 531, 59 N.Y.S. 593

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJuly 15, 1899

StatusPublished

This text of 28 Misc. 531 (Chavin v. Smith) 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

Chavin v. Smith, 28 Misc. 531, 59 N.Y.S. 593 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

Freedman, P. J.

The pleadings in this action were oral, and the complaint, as appears from an indorsement upon the summons, was “ for obtaining money under false pretenses.” At the opening of the trial, the defendants’ attorney objected to the jurisdiction of the trial court, claiming that no authority was conferred by section 1364 of the Greater Hew York charter upon municipal courts, to entertain an action where the complaint set up a cause of action “ for obtaining money under false pretenses.” Without passing upon that question, it is sufficient to say that an examination of the record does not disclose sufficient evidence to uphold the judgment in favor of the plaintiff in this action upon [532]*532the cause of action set up in the complaint. Moreover, the-residence of the defendant is shown to have been in the - county of ■ Kings, and the action having been brought against him in the county of New York, the trial court had no jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, and the judgment must, therefore, be reversed. Tyroler v. Gummersbach, 28 Misc. Rep. 151.

MacLean and Leventritt, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, with costs to appellants.

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

Freedman, P. J.

The pleadings in this action were oral, and the complaint, as appears from an indorsement upon the summons, was “ for obtaining money under false pretenses.” At the opening of the trial, the defendants’ attorney objected to the jurisdiction of the trial court, claiming that no authority was conferred by section 1364 of the Greater Hew York charter upon municipal courts, to entertain an action where the complaint set up a cause of action “ for obtaining money under false pretenses.” Without passing upon that question, it is sufficient to say that an examination of the record does not disclose sufficient evidence to uphold the judgment in favor of the plaintiff in this action upon [532]*532the cause of action set up in the complaint. Moreover, the-residence of the defendant is shown to have been in the - county of ■ Kings, and the action having been brought against him in the county of New York, the trial court had no jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, and the judgment must, therefore, be reversed. Tyroler v. Gummersbach, 28 Misc. Rep. 151.

MacLean and Leventritt, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, with costs to appellants.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 Misc. 531, 59 N.Y.S. 593, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chavin-v-smith-nyappterm-1899.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack