McMahon v. National City Bank

City of New York Municipal Court

McMahon v. National City Bank

142 Misc. 268, 254 N.Y.S. 279, 1931 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 936

CourtCity of New York Municipal Court

DecidedDecember 22, 1931

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 142 Misc. 268 (McMahon v. National City Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering City of New York Municipal Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McMahon v. National City Bank, 142 Misc. 268, 254 N.Y.S. 279, 1931 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 936 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Kahn, J.

By the present motion defendant asked the court to ' decline to retain jurisdiction of the action. The action is brought to recover damages for an alleged breach of a contract made and to be performed in Mexico. The plaintiff is a non-resident citizen of the United States; he has resided in Mexico since 1920. Defendant is a domestic corporation with a branch office for the conduct of its business in Mexico,

It is well settled that the courts of this State will assume and retain jurisdiction of all actions founded on foreign contracts or commercial transactions without regard to the residence of the parties. (Werthheim v. Clergue, 53 App. Div. 122, 125, 126; Furbush v. Nye, 17 id. 325, 326; cited with approval in Gregonis v. Phila. & Reading Coal & Iron Co., 235 N. Y. 152, 159; Davis v. Kessler, 118 Misc. 292, 295; Crane, etc., v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. Co., 131 id. 71, 72.)

The main ground urged as a reason for the dismissal of the complaint is that all the witnesses, data and correspondence needed upon the trial of the action are in Mexico and, therefore, the convenience of the parties will be best served by relegating them to the tribunals of that country for a determination of their controversy. The argument of convenience was definitely rejected by the court in Crane v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. Co. (supra) as a sufficient reason for the refusal to entertain jurisdiction of cases of this character.

For the foregoing reasons the motion is denied. Order signed.

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

Kahn, J.

By the present motion defendant asked the court to ' decline to retain jurisdiction of the action. The action is brought to recover damages for an alleged breach of a contract made and to be performed in Mexico. The plaintiff is a non-resident citizen of the United States; he has resided in Mexico since 1920. Defendant is a domestic corporation with a branch office for the conduct of its business in Mexico,

It is well settled that the courts of this State will assume and retain jurisdiction of all actions founded on foreign contracts or commercial transactions without regard to the residence of the parties. (Werthheim v. Clergue, 53 App. Div. 122, 125, 126; Furbush v. Nye, 17 id. 325, 326; cited with approval in Gregonis v. Phila. & Reading Coal & Iron Co., 235 N. Y. 152, 159; Davis v. Kessler, 118 Misc. 292, 295; Crane, etc., v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. Co., 131 id. 71, 72.)

The main ground urged as a reason for the dismissal of the complaint is that all the witnesses, data and correspondence needed upon the trial of the action are in Mexico and, therefore, the convenience of the parties will be best served by relegating them to the tribunals of that country for a determination of their controversy. The argument of convenience was definitely rejected by the court in Crane v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. Co. (supra) as a sufficient reason for the refusal to entertain jurisdiction of cases of this character.

For the foregoing reasons the motion is denied. Order signed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 Misc. 268, 254 N.Y.S. 279, 1931 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 936, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcmahon-v-national-city-bank-nynyccityct-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack