Majority
p. 465(31 Misc. Rep. 459.) LANGMAN v. MILBURY. (Supreme Court, Appellate Term. May 1, 1900.)
Headnote
Courts—Jurisdiction—Residence of Defendant.The fact that defendant has a place of business in the city of New York at the time of trial will not give the municipal court of that city jurisdiction, if defendant has no actual residence in the city of New York.
Appeal from municipal court, borough of Manhattan, Fifth district.
Action by Lena Langman, by her guardian ad litem, George Sanders, against L. A. Wilmot Milbury, doing business as the Milbury
p. 466Argued before BEEKMAN, P. J., and GIEGERIOH and O’GORMAN, JJ.
Atlantic Supply Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Reversed.
Henry L. Maxson, for appellant.
C, L.. Schurz, for respondent.
The fact that the defendant had, at the time of the trial, a place of business in the city of New York, does not satisfy the jurisdictional requirement. Proof of actual residence will alone suffice (Routenberg v. Schweitzer, 29 Misc. Rep. 653 , 61 N. Y. Supp. 84 , affirmed in [April 2, 1900] 63 N. Y. Supp. 746 ); and, since this proof is not furnished by the record, the judgment must be reversed, and a new trial ordered. As the question was raised upon the trial, the reversal will be with costs to abide the event. Judgment reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event.
Cases cited
- Routenberg v. Schweitzer 29 Misc. Rep. 653 p. 466