Hyperlawhypertext legal database Perlus v. Spiess 60 N.Y.S. 462

← Cases

Perlus v. Spiess

60 N.Y.S. 462 Court N.Y. App. Term Decision date 1899-10-25 English

Contents

Majority

p. 462
PERLUS V. SPIESS et al.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
October 25, 1899.)

Headnote

Appeal—Municipal Courts—Proof of Defendant’s Residence.
A judgment of the municipal court for a plaintiff will be reversed, where the record fails to show that defendant resides within the jurisdiction of the court.
Appeal from municipal court, borough of Manhattan, Fourth district.
Action by Aaron Perlus against Bruno B. Spiess and Rose Spiess, sued as Jacob Spiess and Mary Spiess. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.
Reversed.
Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and MacLEAN and LEVEN-TRITT, JJ.
House, Grosman & Vorhaus, for appellants.
Leopold W. Harburger, for respondent.

The record failing to show that the defendants reside within the jurisdiction of the municipal court, the judgment must be reversed. Tyroler v. Gummersbach, 28 Misc. Rep. 151 , 59 N. Y. Supp. 266 , 319.

Judgment reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellants to abide the event.