Case Name: GLOBE YARN MILLS v. BILBROUGH
Court: New York City Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1892-05
Citations: 28 Abb. N. Cas. 426
Docket Number: 
Parties: GLOBE YARN MILLS v. BILBROUGH.
Judges: 
Reporter: Abbott's New Cases
Volume: 28
Pages: 426–430

Head Matter:
GLOBE YARN MILLS v. BILBROUGH.
N. Y. City Court, General Term;
May, 1892.
1. Jurisdiction.] The maker of a draft undertakes that it will be-paid by the drawee at the place where he is described to be. A cause of action against the maker of the draft for its nonacceptance, therefore, arises at such place.
2. City courts ; jurisdiction.] There are no special restrictions. placed upon the jurisdiction of theN. Y. city court as to actions, in which the plaintiff is a foreign corporation, which are otherwise within the jurisdiction of that court; in this respect the city court has the same jurisdiction as the supreme court.
Appeal from orders of the Special Term denying-defendant’s motions to vacate attachments in three actions.
The actions were brought by the Globe Yarn Mills-against William S. Bilbrough and Walter S. Hume, as-partners, carrying on business under the name of The Bil brough & Hume Manufacturing Company. Two of the actions were upon drafts addressed to Gowing, Sawyer & Co., No. 63 Leonard Street, N. Y. ; and the third was upon a note payable at a bank in the City of Troy, N. Y.
The plaintiff obtained attachments in each of the actions on the ground that the defendants were non-residents of the City of New York and had no place of business where they, or either of them, transacted business. Defendants moved to vacate the attachments on the following grounds, among others, that it appeared by the papers upon which they were granted that plaintiff was a foreign corporation and that the defendants were not residents of the City of New York, and had no place of business there, and that the cause of action did not arise in the City of New York.
The Special Term denied the motion and defendants appealed to this court.
The further facts are stated in the opinion.
Kneeland, Stewart & Epstein, for appellants.
Eaton & Lewis, for respondents.

Opinion:
McCarthy, J.
This is an appeal on the part of defendants from an order denying a motion to vacate a warrant of attachment. The motion was made on the papers on which the attachment was granted.
Actions I. and II. are on drafts made by the defendants, in Cohoes, N. Y., to the order of the treasurer of the plaintiffs, drawn on Gowing, Sawyer & Co., No. 63 Leonard street, N. Y. City.
It was conceded that the same was presented thereafter for acceptance and same refused, and that notice of such non-acceptance was given to the defendants and the drafts are unpaid, and action III, was on.a draft made in Cohoes, N. Y., and payable at Troy, N. Y.
The plaintiff is a foreign corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Massachusetts, and the defendants are a domestic corporation, and doing business at Cohoes, in the State of New York.
The appellant contends that this court has no jurisdiction, because neither the plaintiff or defendant resides in nor has a place of business within the City of New York, and that the cause of action did not arise within the City of New York. It is claimed by respondents, and not denied by appellants, that summons and papers were properly served on defendants in pursuance of section 3170 Code of Civil Procedure.
The cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this court. Two of the drafts, although made in Cohoes, were addressed to a firm in New York City. The third was payable at the City of Troy, within the State of New York. The rights of the parties are to be governed by the laws of the place of payment. Both places are within the State, and, therefore, this court has jurisdiction.
The principal contract sued on, although made in Cohoes, N. Y., was addressed to a firm legally resident in New York City, or doing business there, and the draft was consequently payable there, and upon general principles the jurisdiction of the court may be invoked in ascertaining its nature and interpretations and the duties and liabilities which it created. By drawing the draft, the defendants undertook that the drawees in New York City would pay it to the plaintiffs, or their order, that is, to any person to whom it should be indorsed; and that if the drawees did not so pay it, they, the defendants, would make such payments (Everett v. Vendryes, 19 N. Y. 436; Hibernia Nat. Bank v. Lacombe, 84 N. Y. 367).
The drawer of a draft undertakes that the drawee will be found at the place where he is described to be, and that the sum specified will there be paid to the holder when the draft is presented, and if not so paid, and he is notified, he becomes absolutely bound to pay the amount at the place named (See 84 N. Y. 379).
Admitting that plaintiff is a foreign corporation, section 1779, Code of Civil Procedure, reads: "An action may by maintained by a foreign corporation in the manner and subject to the same regulations as where the action is brought by a domestic corporation, except otherwise specially prescribed by laws." . Section 3343, subdivision 18," Code of Civil Procedure, among other things, defines a domestic corporation to be " a corporation created by or under the laws of the State." . . . . Section 315, Code of Civil Procedure, reads: " The jurisdiction of the city court of New York extends, to the following cases: an action against a natural person or against a foreign or domestic corporation, wherein the complaint demands judgment for a sum of money only, or to recover one or more chattels, with or without damages for the taking or detention thereof."
There are no provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure which declare that in order that this court shall obtain jurisdiction over a plaintiff, a domestic corporation, the same must have a place of business, nor does it fix any other limitations in order to entitle plaintiff to bring suit in this court.
And since section 1779 of the Code of Civil Procedure gives a foreign corporation the right to sue in the same manner and subject to the same limitations as a domestic corporation, it follows that the plaintiff in this action is properly in court. In other words, this court has the same jurisdiction on this subject as the supreme court. The only provisions in regard to domestic corporations are section 264, which applies to superior city courts, and section 341, which applies to a county court. Section 3169, Code of Civil Procedure, has been fully complied with.
From an examination of the various sections quoted, it is very clear that this court has jurisdiction of the person or corporation as well as the subject matter of the action. We think there is nothing in the objection to the sufficiency of the affidavits upon which the attachment was granted. The person who made the affidavits was the one who acted for the treasurer of the plaintiffs and conducted the negotiations and completed the transactions with the defendants. He was not in the position of an attorney, but that of a principal.
The facts were certainly within his personal knowledge, and under the authorities we think the affidavits were sufficient.
Besides, wherever any statement was made on information and belief, the source of such information is fully and fairly stated.
The orders appealed from should be affirmed with costs.
McGown, P. J., concurred.