Furbush v. Nye — 45 N.Y.S. 214

Majority

p. 214

(17 App. Div. 325.)

FURBUSH v. NYE et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

May 7, 1897.)

Headnote

1. Courts—Jurisdiction—Nonresident Parties.

An action on contract may be brought in New York, though both plaintiff and defendant are nonresidents.

2. Attachment—Motion to Vacate—Hearing on Affidavits.

A motion to vacate an attachment on the merits will not be heard on affidavits.

Appeal from special term, New York county.

Action by Charles A. Furbush against Allen T. Nye and others. From an order setting aside the service of summons and dismissing the complaint against defendant Nye and vacating an attachment, plaintiff appeals.

Reversed.

Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and RUMSEY, WILLIAMS, PATTERSON, and PARKER, JJ.

J. E. Ackley, for appellant.

Jas. McNaught, for respondents.

This is an appeal from an order setting aside the service of a summons, dismissing the complaint against the defendant Nye, and vacating a warrant of attachment which was granted against him in the action. It appeared from tiie papers that all of the parties to the action are nonresidents of this state, and the defendant Nye appeared specially in the action for the purpose only of setting aside the service of the summons, and vacating the warrant of attachment. The motion was granted by the learned judge at special term for the reason, as appears in his opinion, that, all the parties being nonresidents, the courts of this state would not take jurisdiction of their controversy, but would remit them to the courts of the state where they lived to settle their affairs there. In this conclusion we think the learned judge was in error. There is, no doubt, a rule that the courts of this state will not take jurisdiction of actions of tort between parties resident of and located in another state. But that rule does not apply, and has never been applied, to actions on contract. Where actions are brought for breach of a contract, courts of this state will take jurisdiction, although all the parties may reside in another state. Especially is that so where the contract is made in this state. Smith v. Crocker, 14 App. Div. 245 , 43 N. Y. Supp. 427 . The motion to vacate the attachment was put, not only upon the ground that the parties were nonresidents, and for that reason the court would not take jurisdiction, but upon the further ground that upon all the facts the plaintiff had no cause of action against the defendants. An examination of the papers shows that it is by no means clear that there was not a cause of action, and that it is not at all certain that the damages may not amount to a considerable sum. In such case the court will not consider the merits of the action upon affidavits, and vacate the warrant, because they determine upon the motion that the plaintiff cannot succeed, but will deny the motion, leaving the merits of the case to be disposed of upon

p. 215

the trial. Ganz v. Illuminating Co., 79 Hun, 409 , 29 N. Y. Supp. 810 . That course should have been pursued in this case.

The order therefore must be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion denied, with $10 costs. All concur.