Case Name: O'REILLY v. NEW BRUNSWICK, A. & N. Y. STEAMBOAT CO.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1899-06-28
Citations: 59 N.Y.S. 261
Docket Number: 
Parties: O’REILLY v. NEW BRUNSWICK, A. & N. Y. STEAMBOAT CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 59
Pages: 261–266

Head Matter:
(28 Misc. Rep. 112.)
O’REILLY v. NEW BRUNSWICK, A. & N. Y. STEAMBOAT CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
June 28, 1899.)
1. Jurisdiction—Residence oe Plaintive—Pleading.
Under Code Civ. Proc. § 1780, which provides that a resident of the state or a domestic corporation may maintain an action against a foreign corporation, a complaint in an action for damages brought by a resident against a foreign corporation which does not allege that plaintiff is a resident should be dismissed, as not stating facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
2. Proof of Residence—Dismissal.
Even if it were not necessary to allege the fact of residence, failure to offer any proof thereof after the fact had been brought in question would warrant a dismissal.
Appeal from city court of New York, general term.
Action by James O’Reilly against the New Brunswick, Amboy & New York Steamboat Company. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, affirmed at general term (55 N. Y. Supp. 1183), defendant appeals.
Reversed.
Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and MacLEAN and LEVEN-TRITT, JJ.
Hyland & Zabriskie, for appellant.
Stewart & Macklin, for respondent.

Opinion:
FREEDMAN, P. J.
This action was brought to recover damages for the alleged negligence of the defendant. It appears that the plaintiff was the owner of the canal boat Julia C. Driscoll; that on January 28, 1895, this boat was lying at a dock on the Raritan river; and that the defendant was the owner of the steamer New Brunswick, then navigating the waters of said river. It is claimed by the plaintiff that on the morning of that day the steamer, while proceeding rapidly on her way down the stream,—the river then being full of ice,—caused the ice to be forced so strongly against the canal boat as to cut a hole in her side, causing her to sink, and for-the loss this action was brought. The case was tried in the city court (55 N. Y. Supp. 1133) before a jury, and was sharply contested.
The most important question presented by the appeal relates to the jurisdiction of the city court to entertain the action. The defendant is a foreign corporation, organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the state of New Jersey, and the cause of action founded upon- the sinking of the boat arose in New Jersey; and for these reasons the defendant insists that the jurisdiction of' the court depends, under section 1780 of the Code, upon the fact of plaintiff's residence within this state. The question- was raised at the commencement of the trial by motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of insufficiency, in not stating that the plaintiff is a-resident, and at the close of plaintiff's case, and the close of the whole case by motion to dismiss. The motion was in each instance-overruled, and the defendant duly excepted.
The city court, although a court of record for certain- purposes,, is a local court, and a court of limited jurisdiction. Code Civ. Proc. § 315-318. Under section 315 of the Code,.however, it has, and for a long period prior to the commencement of the present action had, jurisdiction of an action against a foreign corporation- wherein the complaint demands judgment for a sum of money only. But section 1780 of the Code further prescribes that a resident of the state only may maintain an- action against a foreign corporation for any cause of action, and that a nonresident may maintain against a foreign corporation only certain- actions therein specifically enumerated. This section applies to the supreme court as well as to the city court, and it makes the residence of the plaintiff a jurisdictional fact in every case which is not one in which a nonresident is expressly permitted to sue. The section reads as follows:
"Sec. 1780. An action against a foreign correspondent may be maintained by a resident of the state, or by a domestic corporation, for any cause of action. An action against a foreign corporation may be maintained -by another foreign corporation, or by a non-resident, in one of the - following cases only: (1) Where the action is brought to recover damages for breach of a contract made within the state, or relating to property situated within the state at the time of the making thereof. (2) Where it is brought to recover real property situated within the state, or a chattel, which is replevied within the state. (3) Where the cause of action arose within the state, except where the object of the action is to affect the title to real property situated without the state."
The case at bar is not one in which the plaintiff, if he be a nonresident, is permitted by section 1780 to sue; and the question therefore arises whether it was necessary for him, to set forth in his complaint the jurisdictional fact that at the time of the commencement of the action he was a resident of this state, and what course the defendant must pursue in order to raise the question- of jurisdiction. The authorities bearing upon these points are numerous #and very conflicting, and they cannot well be reconciled. In some of them it was held that, where the want of jurisdiction by reason: of plaintiff's nonresidence does not appear on the face of the complaint, the 'objection cannot be taken by demurrer. Fisher v. Insurance Co., 14 Abb. N. C. 32; Gurney v. Railway Co. (Sup.) 13 N. Y. Supp. 645. In some of them it was held that the nonresidence of the plaintiff' in an action against a foreign corporation is matter in abatement merely, and is waived by appearing and pleading in bar. Downes v. Bank, 6 Hill, 297; Root v. Railway Co., 65 Barb. 619, affirmed in 55 N. Y. 636, on another point.
In McCormick v. Railroad Co., 49 N. Y. 303, Folger, J., said:
"We will assume that the plaintiff was at no time a resident of this state:. * =s 4 The cause of action was of that nature that, although it arose in another state, the court below had jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the action. 4 4 4 yye hold that, where the court has jurisdiction of the subject-matter or cause of action, consent may confer jurisdiction of the person, and that such consent may be expressed by a foreign corporation by appearing by attorney and answering generally in the action."
At the time the cause of action in this case accrued, and also at the time of the decision of the case, section 427 of the old Code was in force, which read as follows:
"Sec. 427. An action against a corporation created by, or under the laws of any other state, government, or country, may be brought in the supreme court in the following cases: (1) By a resident of this state, for any cause of action. (2) By a plaintiff not a resident of this state, when the cause of action shall have arisen, or the subject of the action shall be situated within the state."
The subsequent case of Pease v. Railroad Co., 10 Daly, 459, in which the question arose under section 1780 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was decided on the strength of McCormick v. Railroad Co., supra.
In Gundlin v. Packet Co., 31 Abb. N. C. 437, 28 N. Y. Supp. 572, it was held, substantially, that, although the complaint failed to aver plaintiff's residence, the defendant could raise and litigate the question under a general denial, and that if, thereupon, a conflict of evidence arose upon the point, it was the province of the jury to determine the conflict.
In Root v. Railway Co., supra, it was added:
"No question was made on the trial that the plaintiff was a nonresident. Ti might be that the plaintiff could prove himself a resident of the state, had the question been raised."
The concurring opinion of Van Brunt, P. J., in Gurney v. Railway Co., supra, also shows that the question of jurisdiction may be raised at the trial.
In Barker v. Steamship Co., 91 Hun, 495, 36 N. Y. Supp. 256, the complaint did allege the plaintiff's residence; and at the trial no question of jurisdiction was raised, and a general verdict was rendered for the plaintiff. In his opinion, Follett, J., says:
«4 4 * The defendant asked no questions of the plaintiff in respect to his residence, and gave no evidence "on that issue. The testimony-does not conclusively show that the plaintiff was not a resident of this state when the action was begun, and the presumption of jurisdiction is not rebutted. If it can be said that the evidence is capable of different inferences as to the place of residence of the plaintiff, the answer is that the jury has drawn the inference and determined the question in his favor. The issue in respect to the plaintiff's residence having been found in his favor by the general verdict, and the question not having been raised at the trial, it must be held that the lower court had jurisdiction of the action."