Crowley v. Royal Exchange Shipping Co.

10 Daly 409
New York Court of Common Pleas·Decided April 3, 1882·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

J. F. Daly, J.

This court had no jurisdiction of the action. A late decision of the Supreme Court, general term [410]*410of the first department, holds, that the objection, if the want of jurisdiction appear on the face of the complaint, should be taken by demurrer, otherwise by answer; and that the question of jurisdiction should not be tried upon affidavits (Johnson v. Adams Tobacco Co., 14 Hun, 89). Where a question of fact arises upon the motion raising an issue as to jurisdiction, the case cited is good authority for denying the application, and leaving the defendant to his answer ; but where the facts are undisputed and the law certain, the order asked for should be granted, as in Cumberland Coal Co. v. Sherman (8 Abb. Pr. 243), affirmed at general term in this district.

Beach, J., concurred.

Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.

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

Crowley v. Royal Exchange Shipping Co., 10 Daly 409 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1882).

10 Daly 409 (Crowley v. Royal Exchange Shipping Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Persick v. Philadelphia & Coal & Iron Co.
182 A.D. 291 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1918)