Case Name: Higgins et al. v. Dewey
Court: New York City Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1890-12-27
Citations: 13 N.Y.S. 570
Docket Number: 
Parties: Higgins et al. v. Dewey.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 13
Pages: 570–573

Head Matter:
Higgins et al. v. Dewey.
(City Court of New York, General Term.
December 27, 1890.)
Arrest—Person Brought from Another State—Inveiglement.
Defendant, a citizen of another state, and president of an insolvent corporation, notified plaintiffs, residents of New York city, and creditors of the corporation, that a meeting of the corporation’s creditors would be held on a certain day. Plaintiffs replied by asking him to call on them before he went to the meeting. Seld, that defendant, while in the city in response to plaintiffs’ letter, was exempt from arrest at their instance, though he did not arrive until after the date originally fixed, for the meeting, and though plaintiffs swear that they had no intention of arresting him until after they had conversed with him, when they found his statements very unsatisfactory. Fitzsimons, J., dissenting.1
1See note at end of case.
Appeal from special term.
Action by Eugene Higgins and others against William 0. Dewey. Defendant is a citizen of Massachusetts, and while in New York city was arrested at the instance of plaintiffs. Defendant moved that the order of arrest and the service thereof be set aside, for the reason that he had been inveigled by plaintiffs to come within the jurisdiction of the court. His motion was granted, and plaintiffs appeal.
Argued before McAdam, 0. J., and Fitzsimons and Van Wyok, JJ.
Gruber, Bard <& Landon, for appellants. F. A. Burnham, for respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
To "inveigle" is to persuade to something bad or hurtful, by deceptive arts or flattery; to wheedle; to allure; to entice; to seduce. Webst. Die. In a legal sense, (as applicable in this case,) it is to induce a party to come within the jurisdiction of the court by some scheme, subterfuge, fraud, trick, device, or misrepresentation, that he may be served with process. Baker v. Wales, 14 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 331. Carpenter v. Spooner, 2 Code R. 140, affirmed, 2 Sandf. 717, 3 Code R. 23; Metcalf v. Clark, 41 Barb. 45. The defendant wrote to the plaintiffs from Palmer, Mass., September 17, 1890, that the creditors of a corporation, in which all the parties were interested, would be called together on Friday of the following week. The plaintiffs, under date of September 22d, replied that Mr. Wood, one of the plaintiffs, would like to see him (the defendant) before he went to the meeting. It does not clearly appear where the meeting was to be held, but it was presumably to be held at Palmer, Mass., where the corporation did business. The defendant came to New York, September 30,1890, in answer to the plaintiffs' letter, and was thereafter and on the same day arrested on the order granted herein. The summons is dated September 16th, and the papers sworn to September 17th, but the order to arrest was not granted until September 30th. The plaintiffs swear that, although they contemplated arresting the defendant, they abandoned the intention until after they had conversed with him on September 30th, and that his statements were so unsatisfactory that they instructed their attorney to proceed with the arrest, and proceedings were thereupon instituted. Where a defendant enters this state voluntarily, he comes at his own risk, and creditors may avail themselves of legal remedies against him. Atlantic, etc., Tel. Co. v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 46 N. Y. Super. Ct. 377, on appeal, 87 N. Y. 355; Browning v. Abrams, 51 How. Pr. 172, limiting Adriance v. Lagrave, 59 N. Y. 110, and La-grave's Case, 14 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 333, note. We feel constrained to hold, however, that the letter written by the plaintiffs brought the defendant on to New York, and that while here, under their letter, he was exempt from arrest at their instance. The order appealed from goes too far. It sets aside the order of arrest as well as the service. In this respect the order is erroneous. Metcalf v. Clark, 41 Barb. 45. In so far as it vacates the order of arrest, the order appealed from will be reversed, and in so far as it sets aside the service thereof (the irregularity charged) it will be affirmed, without costs to either party.
MoAdam, C. J., and Van Wyck, J., concur.