Case ID: ny-st-rep_72/html/0174-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "•BOTTY, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Amos R. Woodruff, Resp’t, v. William Austin, App’lt.
    
      (New York City Court, General Term,
    
    
      Filed January 28, 1896.)
    
    1. Appeal—What considered. -
    Upon an appeal from an order denying a motion to set aside service of the summons, on the ground that the court did not have jurisdiction of defendant’s person, the point that the defendant appeared generally in the action after the appeal was taken, cannot be raised on the argument of the appeal, but such question should be presented by a motion to dismiss the appeal.
    
      2. Process—Service—Privilege oe witness.
    The service of a summons will not be set aside, on the ground that the defendant was served while within jurisdiction of the court as a witness in a pending Action, where his delay in returning home on the day of service • was unnecessarily prolonged and, at or about the time of the service of the. process, he was attending to business of a private nature.
    
      Appeal from an order, denying a motion to set aside the service of a summons made on defendant in the city of New York, on the ground that, plaintiff being a resident of New Jersey and defendant a resident of Massachusetts, the court was without jurisdiction of the parties, and on the ground that defendant, at the time of service, was within the city of New York for the purpose of giving his testimony as a witness in an action pending in the supreme-court and was privileged.
    Root & Marsh, for app’ll; A. Edward Woodruff, for resp’t.
   •BOTTY, J.

—In determining the questions arising on this appeal we must be guided solely by the printed record as made up-for that purpose. The contention made by the respondent, upon the argument of this appeal, that the defendant appeared generally in this action since the taking of the appeal cannot be considered here. To bring this question before the court, the respondent should have removed for a dismissal of the appeal, on notice to the appellant. The record shows that the plaintiff, practicing lawyer at the time of the commencement of this action, resided in the city of Bah way, N. J., and had an office for the transaction-of his business in person within the city of New York. The fact that plaintiff had such an office within thé city of New York was sufficient to give the court jurisdiction, as, under the provision of section 3160 of the Code of Civil Procedure, he is deemed a. resident of that city.

It also appears from the record that the defendant is a resident of Boston, Mass. He came to New York on the morning of November 7,1895, for the purpose of attending as a witness in behalf of the plaintiff in the trial of the action of Chrimes against Squier pending in the New York supreme court. On that day said cause appeared on the day calendar, and was marked “ Beady,” but at the request of the attorney for the defendant the same was passed for the day. The case did not again appear on the day calendar until November 18th, although the same was marked “Beady,”' and was liable to be called up at any time. On the morning of November 14tb, the witness was informed by counsel for the plaintiff that his attendance at court was not required on that day and that he might go back to Boston, and return on November 18th. The witness, however, remained in the city, and on the afternoon of November 14th, between the hours of 4 and 5 o’clock, he called at the office of Mr. Woodruff, the plaintiff in this action- and was thereafter, and on the same day, served with the summons herein, the service of which he now seeks to set aside.

It seems that the witness’ delay in returning home on the day in question was unnecessarily prolonged, and that, at or about the time of the service of the process, he was attending to business of a private nature. By reason of the premises he forfeited his privilege of exemption from service of process. The motion to set aside the summons was, therefore, properly denied.

Order of November 27, 1895, and the order of resettlement of November 29, .1895, appealed from, affirmed, with costs.