Bunker v. Langs

The action was brought in the county court upon a guarantee by the defendant of a promissory note, of date March 25, 1890, made by Earnest Trowbridge and George B„ Emory for $72.00, payable to the order of the plaintiff one year after its date at the bank of Porter & Davis at Canisteo, EÍ Y. The plaintiff failed to allege in the complaint that the defendant was a resident of the county of Steuben, which was a requisite

After the issue had been referred and upon the hearing before the referee he sought to raise the question, and upon the motion of the plaintiff amendment of the complaint was allowed and made so as to allege the residence of the defendant in the county.

It is now urged that the objection was available at the trial and that the allowance of the amendment by the referee was error. And in support of that view reference is made to the provisions of the statute, that objections to the jurisdiction of the court although not taken by demurrer or answer is not waived. Code Civ. Pro. § 499. This evidently has relation to jurisdiction! of the subject matter, which if not within the jurisdiction of the court cannot be conferred Upon it by consent of the parties.

The rule is otherwise as to the person. A defendant may submit himself to the jurisdiction of a court although the process by which the plaintiff has attempted to institute an action against him is ineffectual for the purpose, and if he appear and plead to the merits without objection, the want of jurisdiction of his person is waived. This is the general rule. Clapp v. Graves, 26 N. Y. 418 .

The present case comes within this doctrine. And while a demurrer or objection in the outset or failure to appear and answer would have been effectual to prevent a valid recovery without amendment of the complaint in the respect in question when the defendant did without objection appear and answrer the complaint on the merits, he waived the question of jurisdiction of his person and it was then and thereby conferred upon the court. Dake v. Miller, 15 Hun, 356 ; McMahon v. Sherman, 14 St. Rep. 637 ; Ross v. Konor, 17 id. 465.

The cases cited by the learned counsel for the defendant have no necessary application to the question.

In Frees v. Ford, 6 N. Y. 176 , the defendant pleaded want of jurisdiction of the county court and upon demurrer the plea was sustained.

In Judge v. Hall, 5 Lansing, 69, the question arose upon demurrer to the complaint which was held bad for want of averment that the defendant was a resident of the county. And such was the case of Gilbert v. York, 111 N. Y. 544 ; 20 St. Rep. 126 . The question was not in Burns v. O'Neil, 10 Hun, 494 . No amendment of the complaint in the present case was necessary and therefore the defendant was not prejudiced by it. Before the maturity of the note the plaintiff endorsed and transferred it to one Shaw, and after default in its payment he recovered judgment against the plaintiff as endorser. The latter paid to Shaw the judgment and took from him the note. It is now insisted that the note was merged in the recovery and that the defendant’s guarantee is not the subject of an action by the plaintiff. It may be observed that the plaintiff’s contracts of endorsement was a

In Lancey v. Clark, 64 N. Y. 209 , the plaintiff paid the amount of the note there in question to the holder and took it up at the request of one of the parties for whom the defendant was an accomodation maker of it. And it was held that the plaintiff did not derive any right to the note by transfer from the holder, but from the party primarily liable by the payment of it at her request, and the same defense which could be made against the latter by the defendant was available to him as against the plaintiff for the obvious reason that the plaintiff stood in no better position for the purpose of the action than did the person at whose instance he took up the note.

In the present case the plaintiff discharged his liability as endorser, and thereupon received the note with the guaranty from the holder for his own benefit. He says he endorsed the note and let Shaw have it, and after it became due, “ I took it up. I paid him for it and he gave me the note.’’ There is no difficulty in the way of his having the beneficial interest in and title to the note and guaranty. The further question raised whether or not there was an alteration after its delivery was made by inserting words which changed the terms of it from a joint to a joint and several note, was one of fact arising upon a conflict of evidence, and was disposed of by the findings of the referee adversely to the defendant.

The judgment should be affirmed.

All concur.