Holbrook v. Baker

New York Supreme Court

Holbrook v. Baker

23 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 176

DecidedDecember 15, 1878

StatusPublished

This text of 23 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 176 (Holbrook v. Baker) 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

Holbrook v. Baker, 23 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 176 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1878).

Pincite

Opinion

GILBERT, J.:

If the complaint in this case does not show that the County Court had jurisdiction of the person of the defendant, it contains nothing showing that such court had not jurisdiction thereof. The complaint was dismissed on the latter ground. That was error. In the case of Judge v. Hall (5 Lans., 69), this point was, we think, erroneously decided. The Code of Civil Procedure (§ 498) author[177]*177izes sucb an objection to be taken by answer. If not so taken, it is waived, for when tbe court has jurisdiction of the subject-matter an appearance will confer jurisdiction of the person. (McCormick v. Penn. Cent. R. R., 49 N. Y., 303.) We are inclined to hold that the complaint shows on its face that the court had jurisdiction of the person of the defendant; but it is not necessary to determine that point.

The judgment must be reversed, with costs.

Barnard, P. «J., and DyicmaN, «JJ., concurred.

Judgment reversed and now trial granted, costs to abide event.

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

GILBERT, J.:

If the complaint in this case does not show that the County Court had jurisdiction of the person of the defendant, it contains nothing showing that such court had not jurisdiction thereof. The complaint was dismissed on the latter ground. That was error. In the case of Judge v. Hall (5 Lans., 69), this point was, we think, erroneously decided. The Code of Civil Procedure (§ 498) author[177]*177izes sucb an objection to be taken by answer. If not so taken, it is waived, for when tbe court has jurisdiction of the subject-matter an appearance will confer jurisdiction of the person. (McCormick v. Penn. Cent. R. R., 49 N. Y., 303.) We are inclined to hold that the complaint shows on its face that the court had jurisdiction of the person of the defendant; but it is not necessary to determine that point.

The judgment must be reversed, with costs.

Barnard, P. «J., and DyicmaN, «JJ., concurred.

Judgment reversed and now trial granted, costs to abide event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 176, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holbrook-v-baker-nysupct-1878.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack