Case Name: JACOBS et al. v. WHITE et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1914-10-23
Citations: 149 N.Y.S. 500
Docket Number: No. 6210
Parties: JACOBS et al. v. WHITE et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 149
Pages: 500–502

Head Matter:
(164 App. Div. 111)
JACOBS et al. v. WHITE et al.
(No. 6210.)
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
October 23, 1914.)
1. Judgment (§ 17*) — Process to Sustain — Place of Service — Nonresidents.
The Supreme Court acquires no jurisdiction, in an action against a nonresident for a money judgment, by personal service ó'utside of the state.
[Ed. Note, — For other cases, see Judgment, Cent. Dig. §§ 25-33; Dec. Dig. § 17.*]
2. Costs (§ 22*) — Right to Recover — Statutory Provisions.
Code Civ. Proc. § 3228, subd. 5, forbidding the recovery of costs by plaintiff in an action in the Supreme Court triable in New York county, which could have been brought in the City Court, except for the amount involved, and in which the defendant was personally served in New York county, unless the judgment is for more than $1,000, does not apply to an action against a nonresident, jurisdiction over whom was obtained only by his personal appearance in New York county; Code Civ. Proc. § 424, providing that the voluntary appearance of the defendant is equivalent to personal service, being merely for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Costs, Cent. Dig. §§ 47-73; Dec. Dig. § 22. ]
McLaughlin, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Special Term, New York County.
Action by David M. Jacobs and another against Edward D. White and another. From an order denying a motion to retax costs, defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
Argued before INGRAHAM, P. J., and McLAUGHLIN, LAUGH-LIN, CLARKE, and SCOTT, JJ.
Morris Grossman, of New York City, for appellants.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
LAUGHLIN, J.
This action was brought for the conversion of merchandise amounting in value to the sum of $133.71, and the plaintiffs recovered the amount claimed, together with costs, which were taxed in their favor. The defendants moved for retaxation of •costs.
It appears that the defendants are both nonresidents of the state of New York, and reside in the state of New Jersey, and that they have no property or place of business within this state. The plaintiffs attempted to serve the defendants by publication, but they obtained no attachment. Pursuant to the order for service by publication, the summons and complaint were served on one of the defendants without the state. Thereupon the defendants voluntarily appeared and served an answer. The action having been brought to recover a judgment for a sum of money only against nonresidents of the state, no jurisdiction was obtained by the service without the state (Haase v. Michigan Steel Boat Co., 148 App. Div. 298, 132 N. Y. Supp. 1046), and the only jurisdiction obtained was by the voluntary personal appearance of the defendants.
The theory upon which the motion for retaxation for the costs was made by the defendants, and upon which the appeal from the order denying the motion is sought to be successfully sustained, is that by virtue of the provisions of section 424 of the Code of Civil Procedure the voluntary appearance of the defendants is equivalent to personal service in the county of New York. The voluntary appearance was equivalent to personal service for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction (Reed v. Chilson, 142 N. Y._ 152, 36 N. E. 884); but such a voluntary appearance is not equivalent to personal service within the county in which the action is brought, for the purpose of determining whether, under the provisions of section 3228, subdivision 5, of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiffs were precluded from taxing costs on the theory that the action might have been brought in the City Court. The sole test prescribed by the provisions of said subdivision 5 with respect to whether the action could have been brought in the City Court is whether service has been actually made in the county of New York (Moraff v. Kohn, 15'7 App. Div. 648, 142 N. Y. Supp. 775). Service was not actually made within the county of New York, and the voluntary appearance of the defendants in the action is not, for the purposes of the provisions of said subdivision 5, equivalent to actual personal service within the county of New York. It therefore follows that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover costs against the defendants, notwithstanding the fact that the recovery was for less than the sum of $1,000.
It follows that the,order should be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
INGRAHAM, P. J" and CLARKE and SCOTT, JJ., concur.