Bank of United States v. Brooker

I believe the defendant has sustained the burden on the defense of the Statute of Limitations. (Isenstein v. Malcomson, 227 App. Div. 66; Phillips v. Lindley, 112 id. 283; affd., 188 N. Y. 606.) To be sure the test under section 19 of the Civil Practice Act is not residence; of course, the defendant was a resident of New York. However, he was not “ continuously absent * * * for the space of one year or more,” within the meaning of Connecticut Trust Co. v. Wead (172 N. Y. 497), and Jelliffe v. Thaw (67 F. [2d] 880). Defendant’s home, in the sense of a fixed abode, was with his family (wife and…