Case Name: BARNETT v. METROPOLITAN ST. RY. CO.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1900-06-28
Citations: 65 N.Y.S. 509
Docket Number: 
Parties: BARNETT v. METROPOLITAN ST. RY. CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 65
Pages: 509–509

Head Matter:
BARNETT v. METROPOLITAN ST. RY. CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
June 28, 1900.)
Domestic Corporations—Action—Proof—Matters of Record—Appeal and Error.
Plaintiff sued defendant, a corporation, in the municipal court of New York City, and recovered judgment, though failing to show the jurisdiction of that court by proving that defendant was a domestic corporation with its principal place of business in New York City. -Held, that since these facts are matter of record, and cannot be answered or disputed, she can sustain her judgment by proving them in the appellate court.
Appeal from municipal court, borough of Manhattan, Eleventh district.
Action by Inetta Barnett against the Metropolitan Street-Railway Company. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before TRUAX, P. J., and SCOTT and DUGRO, JJ.
Henry A. Robinson, for appellant
J. Baldwin Hands, for respondent.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The brief of the appellant states that this appeal was taken in order to raise the point that there is no proof in the case that the defendant was at the time of the accident a domestic corporation, with its principal place of business in the city of Hew York, and that, therefore, the plaintiff has failed to show that the defendant was within the jurisdiction of the municipal court of Hew York. Since the appeal was taken, the plaintiff has served upon the defendant a notice that she would produce before this appellate term a certified copy of the certificate, of incorporation of the defendant in order to support the judgment. This the plaintiff had a right to do. It may be that the court could take judicial notice of the fact that the defendant is a domestic corporation, and that its principal place of business is in the city of Hew York, but, in any event, it has frequently been held that an omission in proof of a matter of record may be supplied on appeal to sustain a judgment, when a record cannot be answered or changed. Dunford v. Weaver, 84 N. Y. 445; Day v. Town of New Lots, 107 N. Y. 148, 13 N. E. 915; Dunham v. Townshend, 118 N. Y. 281, 23 N. E. 367.
Judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs.