Hyperlawhypertext legal database Muttart v. Muttart 93 N.Y.S. 468

← Cases

Muttart v. Muttart

93 N.Y.S. 468 Court N.Y. App. Term Decision date 1905-04-24 English

Delivered by LEVENTRITT, J.

Contents

Majority

p. 468
MUTTART v. MUTTART.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
April 24, 1905.)

Headnote

1. Appeal—Municipal Court—Obdek Sustaining Demurrer.
An appeal will not lie to the Appellate Term from an order of the Municipal Court sustaining a demurrer to the complaint.
2. Municipal Court—Jurisdiction.
Under the Municipal Court act (Laws 1902, p. 1488, c. 580, § 1, subd. 6), providing that an action may be maintained on a judgment of a court not of record, an action cannot be maintained in the Municipal Court of New York on a judgment of the Chancery Court of New Jersey.
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Eighth District.
Action by Mary R. Muttart against Alder C. Muttart. From a judgment sustaining a demurrer to the complaint, plaintiff appeals. Appeal dismissed.
Argued before SCOTT, P. J., and LEVENTRITT and GREEN-BAUM, JJ.
John Oscar Ball, for appellant.
Goodale, Files & Reese, for respondent.

The appeal, having been taken only from the order sustaining the demurrer, cannot be entertained. Stoddard v. Bell, 100 App. Div. 389 , 91 N. Y. Supp. 477 . If we could consider it, we should have to hold that the complaint is insufficient. It is defective to sustain in any court an action, as on a New Jersey judgment. Beyond this, however, taking notice, for the pur

p. 469
pose of this opinion, that the Court of Chancery of New Jersey is a court of record, it is clear that, under subdivision 6 of section 1 of the Municipal Court act (Laws 1902, p. 1488, c. 580), the court below had no jurisdiction.

Appeal dismissed, with $10 costs. All concur.

Cases cited