Case Name: MASU et al. v. BLUMENSTEIN et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1900-11-07
Citations: 66 N.Y.S. 449
Docket Number: 
Parties: MASU et al. v. BLUMENSTEIN et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 66
Pages: 449–450

Head Matter:
(32 Misc. Rep. 691.)
MASU et al. v. BLUMENSTEIN et al.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
November 7, 1900.)
Municipal Court—Nonresidents—Jurisdiction—Trial—Proof as to Residence Immaterial.
The fact that there was no evidence as to whether defendant in an action in the municipal court of the city of New York was a resident or a nonresident is immaterial, since such court has jurisdiction in actions against nonresidents, as well as residents.
Appeal from municipal court, borough of Manhattan.
Action by Barnet Masu and .another against Jacob Blumenstein and another. From an affirmation of a judgment in the municipal court of the city of New York in favor of the plaintiffs, defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
Argued before TRUAX, P. J., and SCOTT and DUG-RO, JJ.
H. M. Schaap, for appellants.
H. Knutz, for respondents.

Opinion:
PER 'CURIAM.
This appeal was argued before the February appellate term, and the judgment affirmed. A motion was subsequently made for a reargument,-upon the ground that the record contained no evidence as to the residence of the defendants, and hence that the municipal court had no jurisdiction of the action, and that this ground for reversal, although stated in appellant's brief, had apparently been overlooked by the court. The court of appeals has now held that the municipal courts have jurisdiction of actions against nonresidents, thus overruling the decisions to the contrary of this court and the appellate division in the Second department. Worthington v. Accident Co. (N. Y. App.) 58 N. E. 102. It follows that the judgment was properly affirmed.