Case ID: ny-st-rep_32/html/0542-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Harry E. Oliver, App’lt, v. The Walter Heywood Chair M’f’g. Co., Resp’t.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, First Department
    
    
      Filed June 6, 1890.)
    
    Attachment — Foreign corporation — Jurisdiction.
    In order that the court may acquire jurisdiction to grant an attachment against a foreign corporation for a cause of action which does not appear to have arisen within the state, it is necessary that the motion papers should, show that the plaintiff is a resident of the state.
    Appeal from order of special term vacating attachment
    
      A. Kling, for app’lt; M. H. Cardozo, for resp’t.
   Per Curiam.

The power of the court to reach by its process the-property of a foreign corporation within the limits of this state depends entirely upon statutory enactment and does not proceed from any inherent or general jurisdiction which the court possesses. Therefore where such right is- created by statute the conditions therein attached to its exercise must be fulfilled, and they must appear before the court obtains jurisdiction.

In the case at bar the defendant. is a foreign corporation, and an attachment was issued against its property for a cause of action which did not appear to have arisen in this state, and therefore it. was necessary in order that the court should acquire jurisdiction that it should appear that the plaintiff was a resident of the state. The papers are silent upon this point. Where the statute as a preliminary to jurisdiction requires facts to exist, they cannot be presumed.

The order should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Yan Brunt, P. J., Brady and Daniels, JJ„ concur.