Wilson v. Hogan — 61 N.Y.S. 854

Majority

p. 854

WILSON v. HOGAN et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

December 28, 1899.)

Headnote

Courts—Besidence of Defendant—Jurisdiction.

Evidence that’ the “home” of defendant was “86th street” does not sufficiently establish residence within the jurisdiction of the court.

Appeal from municipal court, borough of Manhattan, Sixth district.

Action by Helen Wilson against Margaret Hogan and Timothy Hogan. Prom a judgment for plaintiff, Timothy Hogan appeals. Reversed.

Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and MacLEAN and LEVENTRITT, JJ.

Edward G. Whitaker, for appellant.

Ellis B. Southworth, for respondent.

As it does not appear upon the record that the defendant resided within the jurisdiction of the court below, the judgment must be reversed, even if a collocation of the evidence may establish the home of the defendant to have been “86th street,” in whatever locality that may be; for that does not sufficiently establish residence within the jurisdiction.' Frees v. Ford, 6 N. Y. 176 ; Gilbert v. York, 111 N. Y. 544 , 19 N. E. 268 .

Judgment reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. All concur.

Cases cited

Frees v. Ford 6 N. Y. 176 N.Y. p. 854
Gilbert v. York 111 N. Y. 544 N.Y. 1888-12-11 p. 854