Gundlin v. Hamburg American Packet Co. — 55 N.Y. St. Rep. 775

Majority

p. 775

Abey Gundlin, App’lt, v. The Hamburg American Packet Co., Resp’t.

(City Court of New York, General Term,

Filed November 27, 1893.)

Headnote

Jurisdiction—Residence.

An action against a foreign corporation was contested on the ground

p. 776

that plaintiff was a nonresident. The only, evidence as to his residence-was a statement in his deposition that he resided two months in this city before going to Milwaukee, and the testimony of his counsel that plaintiff was in Hew York when the action was brought. Meld, that the question of residence was properly submitted to the jury, and their decision would not be disturbed.

Appeal from judgment in favor of defendant, entered upon verdict.

Abraham H. Sarasohn, for app’lt; Wheeler, Cortis & Godkin., for resp’t.

This is an action brought to recover damages for the loss of one of six bundles of baggage which the plaintiff claims he brought over on one of the defendant’s steamships.

On the trial it was contended on the part of the defendant, first, that the goods when lost were in the custody of the "United States custom officers; and, second, that the plaintiff was a nonresident at the time the action was commenced, the defendant being a foreign corporation.

On the trial plaintiff did not appear, but his testimony taken under a commission was read.

The only evidence as to this residence was his own statement, that he had resided two months in Cherry street prior to going to Milwaukee, and that of his counsel, who testified that the plaintiff was in New York when-the action was brought.

The trial justice properly submitted the question of residence to the jury, and there are no exceptions in the case that would warrant us in disturbing the verdict.

The judgment appealed from must be affirmed, with costs.

McCarthy, J., concurs.