Case Name: JOHN J. BROOKS, et al., Appellants, v. THE MEXICAN NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CO., Respondent
Court: New York Superior Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1884-04-07
Citations: 18 Jones & S. 281
Docket Number: 
Parties: JOHN J. BROOKS, et al., Appellants, v. THE MEXICAN NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CO., Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the Superior Court of the city of New York
Volume: 50
Pages: 281–289

Head Matter:
JOHN J. BROOKS, et al., Appellants, v. THE MEXICAN NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CO., Respondent.
Decided April 7, 1884.
Foreign corporation.—Jurisdiction over in action by non-resident.—Waiver.— Who are non-residents.
The court has no jurisdiction to entertain an action brought by a nonresident against a foreign corporation, except as provided for in Code Civ. Proc. § 1780, and this, though defendant has appeared generally and put in an answer in which such objection is not taken.
There is nothing in Code Civ. Proc. §§ 263, 266, in regard to the jurisdicdiction of superior city courts which alters this rule. Said sections are to be construed together with and as adding to the conditions of section 1780. The sections of the code that refer to the superior city courts, distribute between local courts and the supreme court and others, upon the conditions named, the general jurisdiction described in section 1780, and are not intended to change any of the conditions of said section.
Section 1780 is an expression of legislative intent that the courts of this state shall have no jurisdiction of such actions, except as herein provided, and consent of a defendant that a court may proceed with such an action, will not affect the duty of the court to carry out that intent, though the cause of action be of such kind as courts of this state in general have jurisdiction of.
Where certain of several joint plaintiffs,—e. g., joint owners of a vessel,— for an injury to which beyond the jurisdiction of this state, the action is brought, are non-residents, and the remainder are residents, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs collectively are residents.
Before Sedgwick, Ch. J., Freedman and O’Gorman, JJ.
Re-argument of plaintiff’s appeal from order of the special term of November 8, 1882, vacating the attachment herein (see former appeal, 49 Super. Ct. 234). A motion was made before issue joined, upon the complaint and affidavit of plaintiff’s attorney, and all proceedings in the action previous to the notice of motion, to vacate the attachment. On the argument of the motion, plaintiff’s attorney read defendant’s answer and his own affidavit. It appears by these papers: that eleven of the seventeen plaintiffs are non-residents of the state ; that of the six plaintiffs residents of the state but twTo are residents of the city of New York ; that the defendant is a foreign corporation ; that the cause of action set out in the complaint is for damages alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiffs by reason of a collision through the alleged negligence of the defendant’s employees, of the brig “ James Miller,” with.the defendant’s steam lighter “ Allison,” on December 2, 1881, near Aransas Pass on the coast of Texas.
Henry D. HotehJciss, for appellants.
Theodore F. H. Meyer, for respondent.
I. Where jurisdiction depends upon the residence of the parties to the action each party plaintiff must be competent to sue and maintain the suit, in the court where it is brought (Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 3 Cranch, 267 ; Coal Company v. Blatchford, 11 Wall. 172; Sewing Machine Co. Cases, 18 Wall. 574-5; Removal Cases, 10 Otto, 457).
II. Section 266 cannot have the effect of extending the jurisdiction of superior city courts to cases which do not fall within either of the class of cases over which the jurisdiction of these courts extended by law at the time of the adoption of the constitutional amendment in 1869 (Landers v. Staten Island R. R. Co., 53 N. Y. 450). Prior to that amendment these courts had not jurisdiction over the subject matter in the class of cases to which this case belongs (McCormick v. Penn. R. R., 49 N. Y. 308). The effect of sec tion 266 contended fpr by appellants, would be repugnant to section 12 of article VI. of the constitution (Hoag v. Lamont, 16 Abb. N. S. 369 ; Landers v. Staten Island R. R. Co., 53 N. Y. 450).
Sections 263 and 266 of the Code of Civil Procedure, contain special provisions relating to superior courts of cities, which are controlled in their application by the general provisions of the code ; they are applicable to actions which can be maintained, while this is an action which, under the general provisions of section 1780 of the Code of Civil Procedure, cannot, so far as non-resident plaintiffs are concerned, be maintained in any of the courts of this state ; and it must be borne in mind, that by the term non-resident plaintiffs in this connection, it is intended to designate those of the plaintiffs who do not reside in this state (Ervin v. Oregon Ry., &c. Co., 62 How. 490; Harriott v. N. J. R. R. Co., 8 Abb.Pr.284; McMahon v. Mut. Ben. Life Ins. Co., 8 Abb. Pr. 97).
The defendant has not waived the objection to the jurisdiction of the superior court, by omitting to plead the objection in its answer (Davidsburgh v. Knickbocker Life Ins. Co. 90 N. Y., 526).
Jurisdiction over the subject matter, over the cause of action, cannot be conferred on any tribunal by any act or omission of the parties in what form soever, .be it consent or waiver, express or implied (Dudley v. Mayhew, 3 Comst. 12; Burckle v. Eckhart, Id. 132 ; Roderigas v. E. R. Sav’gs Inst, 63 N. Y. 463 ; Chapman v. Phenix National Bank, 44 Super. Ct. 361; Davidsburg v. Knickerbocker Life Ins. Co., 90 N. Y. 526 ; Jones v. Norw. & N. Y. Trans. Co., 50 Barb. 193 ; Spring v. Domestic Sewing Machine Co., 14 Reporter, 711).

Opinion:
By the Court.—O'Gorman, J.
The order appealed from must be affirmed for the reasons set forth by the learned judge at special term, in his opinion in this case (49 Super. Ct. 234); and because on the facts, and under sections 266 and 1780 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this court has not jurisdiction of this action.
Costs of this appeal to abide the event.