Case Name: Murphy and Kavanagh v. Mooney
Court: New York Superior Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1848-12-30
Citations: 2 Sandf. 288
Docket Number: 
Parties: Murphy and Kavanagh v. Mooney.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the Superior Court of the city of New York
Volume: 4
Pages: 288–289

Head Matter:
Murphy and Kavanagh v. Mooney.
An assistant justice has jurisdiction under the act of 1813, where the plaintiff resides in his district.
Where one defendant resides in the city and the other is a non-resident, they may be sued by a long summons ; and it is no objection to the suit that the summons is served on the non-resident only.
Dec. 30, 1848.
Certiorari to the assistant justice for the district, including the eighth, ninth and fourteenth wards of the city of New York. The suit was commenced before him by Mooney against Murphy and Kavanagh, (by a summons having seven days to run,) for services rendered. The summons was served by copy on K. and personally on M. The defendants below made default, and on proof of Mooney’s demand, the justice rendered a judgment in his favor. The defendants brought a certiorari, and assigned for error, that at the time of the commencement of the suit, Mooney was not a resident of either of the wards composing the district of the justice; and that Murphy then resided in the county of Queens, and ICavanagh in the twelfth ward of the city of New York, out of the jurisdiction of the justice. Also, that both onght to have been personally served with process.
To this assignment, Mooney pleaded that at the time of the commencement of the suit below, he resided in the eighth ward of the city. The plaintiffs in error demurred to the plea. They claimed that Mooney’s residence was immaterial; and that the proceedings were void because commenced by a long summons served on a non-resident.
E. C. Gray, for the plaintiffs in error.
Stevens & Hoxie, for the defendant in error.

Opinion:
By the Court. Vanderpoel, J.
From the plea demurred to, it appears, that the plaintiff below was a resident of the eighth ward, being one of the wards for which the justice was appointed, and it appears too, that one of the defendants resided in Queen's County, and the other in the twelfth ward of the city.
The plaintiff below residing in the district of the justice, the latter had jurisdiction. (2 R. L. 379, § 103.) One of the defendants residing in the city, it was competent for the plaintiff to proceed by long summons. (Harriott v. Van Cott, 5 Hill, 285 ; Burghart v. Rice, 2 Denio, 95.)
The judgment must be affirmed.