Case Name: Albert Reitman, Respondent, v. Morris Neulander et al., Appellants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1899-10
Citations: 29 Misc. 752
Docket Number: 
Parties: Albert Reitman, Respondent, v. Morris Neulander et al., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 29
Pages: 752–753

Head Matter:
Albert Reitman, Respondent, v. Morris Neulander et al., Appellants.
Appeal from a judgment, in favor of the plaintiff, rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of Rew York, fourth district, borought of Manhattan.
Henry L. Franklin, for appellants.
Ro appearance for respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
It appears affirmatively in the record that the defendant Reulander is n resident of the county of Kings, while the residence of the defendant Roth is not disclosed. Under our recent decisions (Tyroler v. Gummersbach, 28 Misc. Rep. 151; Semmer Glass Co. v. Nassau Show Case Co., Id. 577), the court had no jurisdiction over the defendant Eeulander, and could not render judgment against the defendant Eoth without proof of his residence in the county of Eew York. The judgment must be reversed.
Judgment reversed absolutely as to the defendant Eeulander, with costs to him, and reversed and a new trial ordered as to the defendant Eoth, with costs to him to abide the event.
Present: Freedman, P. J.; MaoLean and Leventritt, JJ.
Judgment reversed absolutely as to defendant Eeulander, with costs, and reversed and new trial ordered as to defendant Eoth, with costs to abide event.