Case Name: AMERICAN CUTLERY CO. v. ALEXANDER
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1911-07-03
Citations: 130 N.Y.S. 240
Docket Number: 
Parties: AMERICAN CUTLERY CO. v. ALEXANDER.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 130
Pages: 240–242

Head Matter:
(72 Misc. Rep. 380.)
AMERICAN CUTLERY CO. v. ALEXANDER.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
July 3, 1911.)
1. Courts (g 188 )—Municipal Courts—Foreign Judgment—Action—Jurisdiction.
Under Municipal Court Act (Laws 1902, c. 580) § 1, subd. 6, providing that the Municipal Court of the city of New York has jurisdiction of an action on a judgment rendered in any court not being a court of record, such court has no jurisdiction of an action on a foreign judgment rendered by a court of record.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Courts, Cent. Dig. § 458; Dec. Dig. § ■188. ]
2. Courts (§ 188 )—Municipal Courts—Action on Foreign Judgment-Pleading.
Municipal Court Act (Laws 1902, c. 580) § 168, provides that, in pleading a judgment of a court, or officer of special jurisdiction, it is not necessary to state the facts conferring jurisdiction, but the judgment may be stated to have been duly made, and, if that allegation is controverted, the party pleading must establish the facts conferring jurisdiction. Held, that such section has no application to an action in the Municipal Court on the judgment of a justice of a foreign state, and that in an action on such judgment the complaint was demurrable for want of facts, where it failed to allege facts showing that the justice had jurisdiction of the subject-matter and of the person of the defendant.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Courts, Cent. Dig. §§ 409, 412; Dec. Dig. § 189. ]
Gerard, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Seventh District.
Action by the American Cutlery Company against Cecil E. Alexander. From a Municipal Court judgment in favor of plaintiff, and from an order overruling defendant’s demurrer to the complaint, he appeals.
Reversed, and demurrer sustained.
Argued before SEABURY, LEHMAN, and GERARD, JJ.
Hamilton R. Squier, for appellant.
William Wallace Young, for respondent.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & RepTr Indexes
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Itep'r Indexes

Opinion:
SEABURY, J.
The complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and the demurrer which was interposed to it upon this ground should have been sustained.
The judgment sued upon was rendered in a justice's court in the state of New Jersey. It is conceded that, if the allegation that the judgment was docketed in the court of common pleas is to be interpreted as equivalent to an allegation that the judgment sued upon became a judgment of a court of record, the Municipal Court is without jurisdiction. Municipal Court Act, § 1, subd. 6. If we disregard the allegation that the judgment was docketed in the court of common pleas, it appears that the judgment sued upon was rendered in an inferior court of limited jurisdiction.
I do not think that section 168 of the Municipal Court act applies to a judgment entered in, a court of limited jurisdiction of a foreign state. Halstead v. Black, 17 Abb. Prac. 227, does not so decide. In that case the foreign judgment sued upon was rendered in a court of record having general jurisdiction. In McLaughlin v. Nichols, 13 Abb. Prac. 244, the distinction between actions upon judgments of courts of general and limited jurisdiction was pointed out, and the court declared that the complaint upon a judgment of a foreign court of inferior jurisdiction must set forth the facts showing that the court had jurisdiction of the subject-matter and of the person of the defendant. Proof of these facts is necessary in order to permit a recovery upon a judgment of an inferior court of a foreign state. Huie v. Devore, 138 App. Div. 677, 123 N. Y. Supp. 12. In my opinion section 168 of the Municipal Court act has no application to the judgments of foreign courts of limited and inferior jurisdiction. In Hollister v. Hollister, 10 How. Prac. 532, 539, the court said:
"It appears to be conceded that section 161 of the Code does not apply to foreign judgments; and it would seem to follow, from this, that a general averment of jurisdiction of a foreign tribunal would not be sufficient."
Judgment and order reversed, and demurrer sustained, with costs, with leave to plaintiff to plead over within five days, upon payment of costs in this court and in the court below.
LEHMAN, J., concurs.