Case Name: Ellen Callahan, Executrix, etc., Appellant, v. The Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of the City of New York, Respondent
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1876-09-19
Citations: 66 N.Y. 656
Docket Number: 
Parties: Ellen Callahan, Executrix, etc., Appellant, v. The Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of the City of New York, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 66
Pages: 656–657

Head Matter:
Ellen Callahan, Executrix, etc., Appellant, v. The Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of the City of New York, Respondent.
The Marine Court of the city of New York has no jurisdiction of an action against the city corporation.
The provisions of the acts of 1860 (chap. 379, Laws of 1860) and 1868 (chap. 853, Laws of 1868), giving to the Supreme Court of the first judicial district, the Court of Common Pleas for the city and county,- and the Superior Court of the city, exclusive jurisdiction in all actions where the city corporation is a party defendant, are not repealed or affected by the provision of the act of 1873, relating to 'the Marine Court (sub. 15, § 3, chap. 639, Laws of 1873), which gives to said court jurisdiction of actions against corporations created under the laws of this State, and having an office or transacting business in the city of New York ; that provision is only applicable to private corporations. ■The officers or agents of a municipal corporation cannot, by consent or omission to object, give to a court jurisdiction in an action against the corporation where the law has conferred elsewhere exclusive jurisdiction of actions against it.
(Argued June 12, 1876;
decided September 19, 1876.)
Accordingly held, that the appearance and answer, by attorney for defendant, in an action brought in the Marine Court against the corporation of the city of New York, was not a waiver of the question of jurisdiction, and did not confer jurisdiction.
This was an action brought in the Marine Court to recover salary alleged to be due and unpaid plaintiff’s testator, as assistant sergeant-at-arms of the board of aldermen. Defendant appeared and answered by attorney. At the close of the evidence said attorney moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground, among others, that the Marine Court “ had no jurisdiction of the action or of the defendant,” which motion was denied, and judgment directed for plaintiff. The judgment was affirmed by the General Term of the Marine Court, but was reversed by the General Term of the Court of Common Pleas. Held, as above.
Wm. F. McNamara for the appellant.
JD. J. Dean for the respondent.

Opinion:
P&r Cwriam
opinion for affirmance, for want of jurisdiction of the Marine Court.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.