Case Name: The People ex rel. The Firemen's Insurance Company of Baltimore, Pl'ff, v. The Justices of the City Court of New York, Def'ts
Court: New York Court of Common Pleas
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1890-09-29
Citations: 33 N.Y. St. Rep. 147
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People ex rel. The Firemen’s Insurance Company of Baltimore, Pl’ff, v. The Justices of the City Court of New York, Def’ts.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 33
Pages: 147–147

Head Matter:
The People ex rel. The Firemen’s Insurance Company of Baltimore, Pl’ff, v. The Justices of the City Court of New York, Def’ts.
(New York Common Pleas,
Special Term,
Filed September 29, 1890.)
Jurisdiction—City Court of New York—Insurance companies.
The city court of New York has jurisdiction of an action against a. foreign insurance company where the. summons and complaint is served upon the superintendent of insurance at his office in Albany.
The summons and complaint in the action were served upon the superintendent of insurance, at Albany, who admitted service thereof. A motion to set aside the service was denied by Chief Justice Me Adam. An application for writ of prohibition was thereupon made to the court of common pleas, to enjoin the city court from proceeding with the case.

Opinion:
Daly, J.
Ordinarily a summons in an action in the city court of Hew York cannot be served without the city of Hew York, but an exception was evidently intended by the legislature in the case of actions against foreign insurance cofporations, for the city court is given jurisdiction of such actions, and the legislature has provided that process against such corporations may be served upon the superintendent of insurance. This officer has his office in Albany, and there the process must be served upon him. We must conclude, therefore, the legislature intended city court process to be served upon him there, or else that the jurisdiction of the city court over actions against such company should be taken away. The former is the more reasonable view, as it will be borne out by reading the statute of 1884 and the Code together, as if enacted at the same time, and this will show an exception to the general provisions of the Code in the cases provided for in the statute. The city court, therefore, properly decided to entertain, the action. Application denied.