Majority
p. 1146REITMAN, Respondent, v. NEULANDER et al., Appellants. (Supreme Court, Appellate Term. October 25, 1899.)
Headnote
Action by Albert Reitman against Morris Neulander and Edward Roth. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.Reversed.
Henry L. Franklin, for appellants.
It appears affirmatively in the record that the defendant Neulander is a resident of the county of Kings, while the residence of the defendant Roth is not disclosed. Under our recent decisions (Tyroler v. Gummersbach, 28 Misc. Rep. 151 , 59 N. Y. Supp. 266 , 319; Philip Semmer Glass Co. v. Nassau. Show-Case Co., 28 Misc. Rep. 577 , 59 N. Y. Supp. 530 ), the court had no jurisdiction over the defendant Neulander, and could not render judgment against the defendant Roth without proof of his residence in the county of New York. The judgment must be reversed. Judgment reversed absolutely as to the defendant Neulander, with costs to him, and reversed, and a new trial ordered, as to the defendant Roth, with costs to him to abide the event.
Cases cited
- Phillip Semmer Glass Co. v. Nassau Show-Case Co. 28 Misc. Rep. 577 p. 1146