Case Name: PERLUS v. SPIESS et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1899-10-25
Citations: 60 N.Y.S. 462
Docket Number: 
Parties: PERLUS V. SPIESS et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 60
Pages: 462–462

Head Matter:
PERLUS V. SPIESS et al.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
October 25, 1899.)
Appeal—Municipal Courts—Proof of Defendant’s Residence.
A judgment of the municipal court for a plaintiff will be reversed, where the record fails to show that defendant resides within the jurisdiction of the court.
Appeal from municipal court, borough of Manhattan, Fourth district.
Action by Aaron Perlus against Bruno B. Spiess and Rose Spiess, sued as Jacob Spiess and Mary Spiess. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.
Reversed.
Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and MacLEAN and LEVEN-TRITT, JJ.
House, Grosman & Vorhaus, for appellants.
Leopold W. Harburger, for respondent.

Opinion:
PER CTJRIAM.
The record failing to show that the defendants reside within the jurisdiction of the municipal court, the judgment must be reversed. Tyroler v. Gummersbach, 28 Misc. Rep. 151, 59 N. Y. Supp. 266, 319.
Judgment reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellants to abide the event.