Finn v. Chase National Bank

New York Supreme Court

Finn v. Chase National Bank

176 Misc. 127, 26 N.Y.S.2d 771, 1941 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1636

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 28, 1941

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 176 Misc. 127 (Finn v. Chase National Bank) 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

Finn v. Chase National Bank, 176 Misc. 127, 26 N.Y.S.2d 771, 1941 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1636 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Section 15 of article VI of the New York Constitution and subdivision 3 of section 16 of the New York City Court Act, conferring jurisdiction in actions not exceeding $3,000 for the foreclosure of mechanics’ liens and hens on personal property, have reference to liens on chattels and goods only, and did not grant and were not intended to grant greater equitable jurisdiction to the City Court of New York than it possessed prior thereto. (Rubin v. Bernstein, 133 Misc. 95.) Personal service of a summons of the City Court of New York in Illinois, requiring the defendant to appear and answer in New York in six days, is invalid as not reasonable and adequate notice, and, therefore, violative of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. (Roller v. Holly, 176 U. S. 398.) The action of Gerard v. [128]*128American Pictures Incorporated was for damages for breach of contract, and the attachment of property of the defendant was a provisional remedy in that action. In this, a second action against First National Bank, plaintiffs seek the aid of equity and challenge the transfer of the property allegedly attached within the compass of a single suit. (American Surety Co. v. Conner, 251 N. Y. 1, 8.) The second action is wholly different from that originally brought and could not be commenced thereafter by reservice of a copy of the same attachment issued in the first action. Since a money judgment and equitable relief are sought against First National Bank, a foreign corporation, the action as to it must be commenced by attachment and order for publication of the summons. Under section 51 of the City Court Act service of summons outside the State may not be made without order, and provisions making section 235 of the Civil Practice Act applicable do not change that requirement. (Weil, Inc., v. Popper, 143 Misc. 684.) The decision of Pennington v. Fourth National Bank (243 U. S. 269) is not applicable. In view of the foregoing it is unnecessary to pass upon the claim that section 51 is otherwise unconstitutional.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted.

All concur. Present — McCook, Hammer and McLaughlin, JJ.

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

Per Curiam.

Section 15 of article VI of the New York Constitution and subdivision 3 of section 16 of the New York City Court Act, conferring jurisdiction in actions not exceeding $3,000 for the foreclosure of mechanics’ liens and hens on personal property, have reference to liens on chattels and goods only, and did not grant and were not intended to grant greater equitable jurisdiction to the City Court of New York than it possessed prior thereto. (Rubin v. Bernstein, 133 Misc. 95.) Personal service of a summons of the City Court of New York in Illinois, requiring the defendant to appear and answer in New York in six days, is invalid as not reasonable and adequate notice, and, therefore, violative of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. (Roller v. Holly, 176 U. S. 398.) The action of Gerard v. [128]*128American Pictures Incorporated was for damages for breach of contract, and the attachment of property of the defendant was a provisional remedy in that action. In this, a second action against First National Bank, plaintiffs seek the aid of equity and challenge the transfer of the property allegedly attached within the compass of a single suit. (American Surety Co. v. Conner, 251 N. Y. 1, 8.) The second action is wholly different from that originally brought and could not be commenced thereafter by reservice of a copy of the same attachment issued in the first action. Since a money judgment and equitable relief are sought against First National Bank, a foreign corporation, the action as to it must be commenced by attachment and order for publication of the summons. Under section 51 of the City Court Act service of summons outside the State may not be made without order, and provisions making section 235 of the Civil Practice Act applicable do not change that requirement. (Weil, Inc., v. Popper, 143 Misc. 684.) The decision of Pennington v. Fourth National Bank (243 U. S. 269) is not applicable. In view of the foregoing it is unnecessary to pass upon the claim that section 51 is otherwise unconstitutional.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted.

All concur. Present — McCook, Hammer and McLaughlin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

176 Misc. 127, 26 N.Y.S.2d 771, 1941 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1636, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/finn-v-chase-national-bank-nysupct-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack