Majority
p. 508Samuel Smith and Andrew W. Smith v. Benjamin F. Butler.
Headnote
Actions to recover compensation for injuries clone to personal property may he maintained wherever jurisdiction of the parties can be obtained. In such cases the venue is transitory. The ruling in AColony v. Bom (3 Abbott's Pr. B., 810), distinguished from the present case.Appeal "by the defendant from a judgment at Special Term overruling a demurrer to the complaint.
The complaint alleged that the plaintiffs were copartners in New Orleans on the 27th of May, 1862, and were then lawfully carrying on their business, &e. That on that day, in the city of New Orleans, the defendant, General Butler, -unlawfully, with force of arms, with a multitude of people, surrounded the premises of the plaintiff, and took possession of their place of business, and removed their property from said promises, and took the same into his possession, and had converted a portion of the funds of their firm. That thereby their business was broken up, to their groat Rss and damage, &c.
The defendant demurred to the complaint on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction of .the subject of the action, and that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
The Court overruled the demurrer, and the defendant appealed.
John K. Hackett, for appellant.
Stanley, Langdell and Brown, for respondent.
By the Court.
The question presented in this case was carefully considered-and the authorities reviewed by Mr. Justice Monell in the case of McIvor v. McCabe, (26 How. Pr. R, 257) and I concur with the views there expressed.
It may not however, be necessary on the present occasion, to review or deny the doctrine of Molony v. Dows (8 Abbott’s Pr. R., 316), which was only a nisi prius case, but of cv/av. - entitled to ¿-rent respect as the ruling of a very learned t experienced Judge,—because that case concedes that sever;-..
p. 509
cases in this country “authorize the conclusion that actions to recover compensation for injury clone to personal property ” (which is the present case), may be maintained wherever jurisdiction of the parties can he obtained. In other words, that in such cases the venue is transitory. This is unquestionably the rule. (1 Chitty's Pleadings, 243; Com. Dig. N., 12 and Trover, 7; Glen v. Hodges, 9 Johns., 67 , 69 ; Smith on Actions at Law, 78. Kerr on Actions at Law, 206. See also Harriott v. New Jersey Transportation Co., 2 Hilt., 262.)
The judgment should be affirmed with costs.
Judgment affirmed.