Winchester v. Browne

13 N.Y.S. 655, 37 N.Y. St. Rep. 542, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1620
New York Supreme Court·Decided March 13, 1891·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff has been present as an inhabitant of this state for the period of eight years, and after he became such commenced this action against the defendant upon a cause of action arising in the state of Massachusetts. It has been litigated for the intervening period upon the assumption that the court would entertain jurisdiction of it, and it has now reached a point where a trial can speedily be obtained. It should be borne in mind that this is an action in tort, both parties being non-residents, the cause of action arising out'of the state; and the refusal of the court to entertain juris[656]*656diction does not depend upon the motion of- the parties necessarily. The court may refuse upon its own motion to entertain jurisdiction in such an action. Whether the court would or would not retain jurisdiction in this action was a matter of discretion, and under the circumstances the discretion ■was fairly and reasonably exercised in the denial of the defendant’s motion. The prefer should be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to abide the event. All concur.

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

Winchester v. Browne, 13 N.Y.S. 655, 37 N.Y. St. Rep. 542, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1620 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1891).

13 N.Y.S. 655 (Winchester v. Browne) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Stebbins v. Lena Lumber Co.
1922 OK 291 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1922)
Colorado State Bank v. Gallagher
27 N.Y.S. 688 (New York Supreme Court, 1894)