Rubel v. Central Railroad — 156 N.Y.S. 1094

Majority

p. 1094

RUBEL v. CENTRAL R. CO. OF NEW JERSEY.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

January 14, 1916.)

Headnote

1. Railroads <@=>33—Foreign Railroad Corporations—Actions—Venue.

Regarding place of trial of an action against a foreign corporation, though a railroad company, it is not a resident of the county in which it was sued, not maintaining an office, nor working its railroad, nor transacting any business therein, but of the county in which is its office and principal place of business.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Railroads, Cent. Dig. §§ 70, 71; Dec. Dig. <@=>33.]

2. Courts <@=14—Jurisdiction—Action Between Nonresident and For-

eign Corporation.

The courts of the state have jurisdiction of an action for negligence by a nonresident against a foreign corporation doing business in the state; Code Civ. Proe. § 1780, snbd. 4, as added by Laws 1913, c. 60, authorizing action by such a person against such a corporation for any cause of action.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Courts, Cent. Dig. §39; Dec. Dig, <@=>14J

■<@=^For other cases see same topic & ICEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes

p. 1095

Appeal from Special Term, Westchester County.

Action by John Rubel against the Central Railroad Company _of New Jersey. From an order as resettled so far as granting motion to change place of trial, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued before JF,NKS, P. J., and THOMAS, STAPLETON, MILLS, and PUTNAM, JJ.

Sydney A. Syme, of Mt. Vernon, for appellant.

Robert Thome, of New York City, for respondent.

[1] The plaintiff sued the defendant in the county of Westchester for negligence. The defendant duly moved for a change of venue to the county of New York, upon the ground that the latter was the proper county. It showed without dispute that it was a foreign corporation, with its office and principal place of business in New York City; that it did not maintain an office nor transact any business or work its railroad in the county of Westchester; and that the plaintiff was a nonresident of this state. I think that the Special Term rightly granted the motion. In Finch School v. Finch, 144 App. Div. 687 , 129 N. Y. Supp. 1 , we held that upon such a motion a domestic corporation is deemed to be a resident of the county in which it has its principal office and place of business. And in Polley v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Co., 138 App. Div. 636 , 122 N. Y. Supp. 708 , affirmed 200 N. Y. 585 , 94 N. E. 1098 , the court said that the reasoning that applies to domestic corporations as to matters of resi- ' dence applies to foreign corporations. I think, therefore, that for the purposes of this motion, and upon this record, the residence of the defendant must be found in the county of New York. This decision does not conflict with Policy’s Case, supra, nor with Poland v. United Traction Co., 88 App. Div. 281 , 85 N. Y. Supp. 7 , affirmed on opinion below 177 N. Y. 557 , 69 N. E. 1129 ; cited in Policy’s Case, supra, in Poland’s Case, supra, it was said that it seemed to be settled that in the case of a railroad corporation its place of residence must be ascertained by its place of business; if it have several places of business, it must also be deemed to have several places of residence; and it was upon this principle that the court in those cases held that the railroad company, for the purposes of the venue, would be held resident of any county through which it worked its road.

[2] Subdivision 4 of section 1780 of the Code of Civil Procedure, added by chapter 60 of the Laws of 1913, makes obsolete our decision in Klunck v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 148 App. Div. 786 , 133 N. Y. Supp. 207 .

I advise that the order be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur.

Cases cited

Polley v. Lehigh Valley Railroad 200 N. Y. 585 N.Y. 1911-01-24 p. 1095
Poland v. United Traction Co. 88 App. Div. 281 N.Y. App. Div. 1903-11-11 p. 1095