Lake Geneva Ice Co. v. Selvage

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Lake Geneva Ice Co. v. Selvage

28 Misc. 581, 59 N.Y.S. 544

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJuly 15, 1899

StatusPublished

This text of 28 Misc. 581 (Lake Geneva Ice Co. v. Selvage) 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

Lake Geneva Ice Co. v. Selvage, 28 Misc. 581, 59 N.Y.S. 544 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In an action to recover damages for breach of -contract, the complaint was dismissed upon the ground that the •court was without jurisdiction, as the plaintiff -was a foreign corporation. The justice regarded the case of Rieser v. Parker & Co., 27 Misc. Rep. 205, as controlling his decision. That view is based upon a misconception of the scope of that authority. That case has reference only to a foreign corporation defendant. It was there held that the attempt by the Legislature to grant jurisdiction [582]*582to the Municipal Court of the city of Yew York over a foreign, corporation defendant was unconstitutional, as it bestowed powers-in excess of those possessed by the County Courts, by which the-jurisdiction of the Municipal Court is limited. The Municipal Court can have no jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant, because the County Courts have none. There is nothing in the Constitution restricting the County Courts from entertaining the-action of a non-resident plaintiff, and, in the absence of constitutional prohibition, those courts would have had jurisdiction over non-resident defendants. Irwin v. Metropolitan Street Railway Company, 38 App. Div. 253, at p. 255.

■ The judgment must be reversed.

Present: Ebeedman, P. J.; MacLean and Leventbitt, JJ.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.

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

Per Curiam.

In an action to recover damages for breach of -contract, the complaint was dismissed upon the ground that the •court was without jurisdiction, as the plaintiff -was a foreign corporation. The justice regarded the case of Rieser v. Parker & Co., 27 Misc. Rep. 205, as controlling his decision. That view is based upon a misconception of the scope of that authority. That case has reference only to a foreign corporation defendant. It was there held that the attempt by the Legislature to grant jurisdiction [582]*582to the Municipal Court of the city of Yew York over a foreign, corporation defendant was unconstitutional, as it bestowed powers-in excess of those possessed by the County Courts, by which the-jurisdiction of the Municipal Court is limited. The Municipal Court can have no jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant, because the County Courts have none. There is nothing in the Constitution restricting the County Courts from entertaining the-action of a non-resident plaintiff, and, in the absence of constitutional prohibition, those courts would have had jurisdiction over non-resident defendants. Irwin v. Metropolitan Street Railway Company, 38 App. Div. 253, at p. 255.

■ The judgment must be reversed.

Present: Ebeedman, P. J.; MacLean and Leventbitt, JJ.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 Misc. 581, 59 N.Y.S. 544, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lake-geneva-ice-co-v-selvage-nyappterm-1899.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack