Case Name: UBART v. BALTIMORE & O. R. CO.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1907-03-01
Citations: 102 N.Y.S. 1000
Docket Number: 
Parties: UBART v. BALTIMORE & O. R. CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 102
Pages: 1000–1002

Head Matter:
(117 App. Div. 831)
UBART v. BALTIMORE & O. R. CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
March 1, 1907.)
1. Pleading — Issues—Denial of Immaterial Allegations — Residence of Plaintiff.
The residence of plaintiff not being material to her cause of action, but only to the jurisdiction of the court, allegation thereof in the complaint is immaterial, so that no issue is raised thereon by the denial in the answer ; -but, to allow of litigation of a fact on- which jurisdiction depends, the issue must be raised by plea to the jurisdiction.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 39, Pleading, § 259.]
2. Pleading—Denial on Information and Belief.
Denial in the answer “on information and belief” of any knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief is not a good denial.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 39, Pleading, §§ 249-252.]
Appeal from Trial Term, Westchester County.
_ Action by Lizzie Ubart, for whom John Ubart, her administrator, was substituted on her death after entry of judgment, against the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company, for negligence. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before WOODWARD, JENKS, HOOKER, GAYNOR, and RICH, JJ.
J. P. Cotton, Jr. (H. A. Moore, on the brief), for appellant.
Louis J. Vorhaus (Charles Goldzier, on the brief), for respondent.

Opinion:
GAYNOR, J.
It is claimed by the appellant that the plaintiff (now deceased) was not a resident of the state at the time of the commencement of the action, and therefore could not maintain the action for the reason that the appellant is a foreign corporation (Code Civ. Proc. § 1780). There was no such issue on the pleadings. Our Supreme Court being a court of general jurisdiction its jurisdiction is presumed unless lack of jurisdiction appear on the complaint itself. It is true that the complaint alleged that the plaintiff was a resident of the state, but no issue could be raised thereon by the denial, because it was an unnecessary allegation. It was no part of and therefore immaterial to the cause of action, and (as is the everyday rule) no issue can be joined on an immaterial allegation in a pleading. Brown v. Travelers' Life Ins. Co., 21 App. Div. 42, 47 N. Y. Supp. 253; Linton, v. Unexcelled Fireworks Co., 124 N. Y. 533, 27 N. E. 406. The residence of the plaintiff was material to the jurisdiction of the court, not to the cause .of action. Her nonresidence was a defence, and had to be pleaded as such in the answer to be put in issue; and the burden of proof thereon would be on the defendant, as is the case with all defences. It was not so pleaded. No issue of fact can be litigated which the pleadings do not present. The plaintiff could not be confronted with an issue of her nonresidence on the trial any moie than with any other issue of -fact not presented by the pleadings. That if it happened to appear on the trial by the plaintiff's testimony or otherwise that the plaintiff was a nonresident the court would on the defendant's motion have to dismiss the case, or could do so of its own motion, or even on a motion before trial, the facts being undisputed (Robinson v. Oceanic Nav. Co., 112 N. Y. 315, 19 N. E. 625, 2 L. R. A. 636), is another question altogether. We are now dealing with a question of pleading. A plea to the jurisdiction for nonresidence, or on any other question of fact, has to be made now as formerly by the defendant. The plea or defence of no jurisdiction has not been abolished. A party may not be surprised by such a question on the trial. Where jurisdiction depends on a question of fact, that fact must b,e made an issue by the pleadings in order to be litigated, and as the fact is decided so is the question of jurisdiction determined. Matter of City of Mt. Vernon, 34 Misc. Rep. 225, 68 N. Y. Supp. 823. If such issue be not presented by the pleadings evidence thereon would have to be excluded for irrelevancy. The fact of residence is often a difficult and close one and could not be litigated without notice and preparation.
Moreover, the denial in the answer of the allegation of residence in the complaint was not good, viz., it was "on information and belief" of any knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief.
The evidence on the trial was also sufficient to uphold the finding of the jury that the plaintiff was a resident.
The judgment should be affirmed.
Judgment and order affirmed with costs. All concur.