Langman v. Milbury
This text of 64 N.Y.S. 465 (Langman v. Milbury) 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.
Opinion
The fact that the defendant had, at the time of the trial, a place of business in the city of New York, does not satisfy the jurisdictional requirement. Proof of actual residence will alone suffice (Routenberg v. Schweitzer, 29 Misc. Rep. 653, 61 N. Y. Supp. 84, affirmed in [April 2, 1900] 63 N. Y. Supp. 746); and, since this proof is not furnished by the record, the judgment must be reversed, and a new trial ordered. As the question was raised upon the trial, the reversal will be with costs to abide the event. Judgment reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
64 N.Y.S. 465, 31 Misc. 459, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/langman-v-milbury-nyappterm-1900.