Legal Opinion

Wilde v. New York & Harlem Railroad

New York Court of Common Pleas

Decided April 15, 1857PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Appeal by defendants from a judgment of the Second District Court. This action was commenced by a short summons, the plaintiff being a non-resident and giving security. Ou the return day the defendants appeared, and moved to dismiss the suit upon the ground that the defendants could only be sued by a long summons. The objection was overruled, the defendants answered, and the cause was thereafter twice adjourned.

Read the full summary

Appeal by defendants from a judgment of the Second District Court. This action was commenced by a short summons, the plaintiff being a non-resident and giving security. Ou the return day the defendants appeared, and moved to dismiss the suit upon the ground that the defendants could only be sued by a long summons. The objection was overruled, the defendants answered, and the cause was thereafter twice adjourned. On the final adjourned day the defendants failed to appear, and judgment was rendered against them by default. From that judgment they appealed, and on the appeal offered affidavits…

1Opinion of the Court

Brady, J. —

The Code, section 58, confers civil jurisdiction in certain actions, of which the present is one; and section 54 declares that no justice of the peace shall have cognizance of a civi action in certain cases, not including, however, actions against corporations. The constitution, sect. 3 of art. 8, declares that corporations shall have the right to sue and shall be subject to be sued in all courts, in like cases as natural persons. There can be no doubt that an action can be entertained by a justice against a resident corporation, and, as we shall see, that such corporation may be…

2Cited by1 opinion

  1. Pultz v. DiossyNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1877

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API