Brooks v. Mexican Construction Co.
The Superior Court of New York City
Appeal by plaintiffs from order vacating attachment. The plaintiffs were owners of the brig James Miller, and the defendant a foreign corporation. The action was- to recover damages for injuries done to the brig by collision with a steam lighter belonging to the defendant, at a port on the Texas coast. The summons and complaint were personally served upon defendant’s secretary in this city on-July 8, 1882..
Read the full summary
Appeal by plaintiffs from order vacating attachment. The plaintiffs were owners of the brig James Miller, and the defendant a foreign corporation. The action was- to recover damages for injuries done to the brig by collision with a steam lighter belonging to the defendant, at a port on the Texas coast. The summons and complaint were personally served upon defendant’s secretary in this city on-July 8, 1882.. On July 14, an attachment herein was granted and levied, upon property of the defendant in this city. This attachment the defendant moved to set aside upon the ground that the court had…
1Opinion of the Court
The following opinion was rendered by the court below:
“Truax, J.
—All the plaintiffs are not residents, therefore they cannot maintain this action. The defendant by appearing and answering has not waived the objection that the court has not jurisdiction of the action (Harriott v. N. J. R. R. Co., 8 Abb. Pr. 284). The attachment is vacated with $10 costs.”
Upon a re-argument the following additional opinion was rendered:
“Truax, J.—If the plaintiff’s view of the meaning of *237sections 266 and 1780 of the Code of Civil Procedure is the right one, this court would have jurisdiction of an action…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Harriott v. New Jersey RailroadNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1858