Ervin v. Oregon Railway & Navigation Co.
New York Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtVan Vorst, J.
— The defendant, on whose behalf the motion to dismiss the complaint is made, although a foreign corporation, before answering appeared generally in the action. Such appearance in itself gave the court jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, but not necessarily over the cause of action. For although a defendant voluntarily appears in an action, he may yet object to the jurisdiction of the court over the subject-matter, as is done in this instance (Burnett agt. Chicago and Lake Huron R. R. Co., 4 Hun, 114 ; Carpenter agt. Central Park and North and East River R. R. Co., 11 Abb. [N. S.],…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Massie v. WattsSupreme Court of the United States · 1810
- Gardner v. . OgdenNew York Court of Appeals · 1860
- Parrott v. ByersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1871
3Cited by7 opinions
- Ernst v. Rutherford & Boiling Springs Gas Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1899
- O'Connor v. International Silver Co.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1904
- Ernst v. Rutherford & Boiling Springs Gas Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1899
- Ernst v. Elmira Municipal Improvement Co.New York Supreme Court · 1898
- Galt v. Provident Savings BankNew York Supreme Court · 1886
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.