Case Name: THOMPSON v. RAWLSTON
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1909-06-25
Citations: 117 N.Y.S. 904
Docket Number: 
Parties: THOMPSON v. RAWLSTON.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 117
Pages: 904–905

Head Matter:
THOMPSON v. RAWLSTON.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
June 25, 1909.)
Courts (§ 189 )—Municipal Courts—Substituted Process—Filing Order.
The Municipal Court acquired no jurisdiction by an attempted substituted service of summons and complaint; the order for such service not having been filed in such court six days before the return day of the summons, as required by Municipal Court Act (Laws 1902, p. 1501, c. 580) § 34.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Courts, Dec. Dig. § 189. ]
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, First District.
Action by Sadie Louise Thompson against Zelma Rawlston. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Reversed and dismissed.
See, also, 116 N. Y. Supp. 13.
Argued before GILDERSLEEVE, P. J., and MacLEAN and SEA-BURY, JJ.
•William p. S. Hart, for appellant.
E- Rosenthal, for respondent.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The summons and complaint were not personally served, but service was attempted to be. made by virtue of an order for substituted service. In such a case Municipal Court Act (Laws 1903, p. 1501, c. 580) § 34, provides that the order allowing such service of the papers upon which the same was granted must be filed in the;court below at least six days prior to the return day of the summons. This was not done in this case, and the court below, therefore, acquired no jurisdiction. Dalton v. Mills (Sup.) 91 N. Y. Supp. 733; Stephens v. Molloy, 50 Misc. Rep. 518, 99 N. Y. Supp. 385.
Judgment reversed, with costs, and complaint dismissed.