Case Name: Charles C. Kirchner, Resp't, v. The George C. Flint Co., App'lt
Court: Brooklyn City Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1890-11-24
Citations: 34 N.Y. St. Rep. 119
Docket Number: 
Parties: Charles C. Kirchner, Resp’t, v. The George C. Flint Co., App’lt.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 34
Pages: 119–120

Head Matter:
Charles C. Kirchner, Resp’t, v. The George C. Flint Co., App’lt.
(City Court of Brooklyn,
General Term,
Filed November 24, 1890.)
Jurisdiction—City court of Brooklyn.
The city court of Brooklyn has jurisdiction of an action against a domestic corporation whose place of business is without the city of Brooklyn, where the cause of action arose within that city.
Appeal from judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered upon a verdict.
Action to recover for outlays incurred by plaintiff in the care and cure of his infant child, who was run over by the truck of defendant. The child, which was three and a half years old, started with two other girls older than herself to cross the street on the cross-walk, when one of defendant’s teams struck and knocked her down and the wheels of the truck passed over both thighs, inflicting injuries which confined her to her bed for four weeks.
The defendant is a domestic corporation, having its'place of business in the city of New York.
Appellant claims that the child was not sui juris, and it was. negligence to allow her to run upon the streets unaccompanied; that it was error to admit testimony that defendant's driver was arrested at the time of the accident, to admit ordinances of the city without evidence that they were authentic, and to reject evidence as to what took place at the station house; also, that the court had no jurisdiction of the action, as defendant is a non-resident.
Abraham Kling, for app’It; Hector M. Hitchings, for resp’t.

Opinion:
Clement, Oh. J.
The only question raised on m this appeal worthy of consideration is as to the jurisdiction of the court. The defendant is a domestic corporation, and its place of business is located in New York city. The cause of action, as appears by the record, arose in Brooklyn. Section 263 of the Code provides that the jurisdiction of the court extends " to an action for any other cause where the cause of action arose within that city." Such a provision was clearly within the spirit of the constitution, and there is no authority or intimation in any decision of the court of appeals to the contrary. In Landers et al. v. Staten Island R. R. Co., 53 N. Y., 450, 459, Judge Allen said: " The jurisdiction attempted to be exercised here is in respect to a cause of action originating outside of the city, and over a corporation not located or having a place of business within the city. Until this new meaning of the revised judicial article of the constitution was discovered, the jurisdiction of city, county and other local courts was confined to causes of action originating within the territorial limits of the tribunal, or to cases in which the party proceeded against resided in or was served with process within the jurisdiction." See, also, Hoag v. Lamont, 60 N. Y., 96; Davidsburgh v. Knickerbocker Life Insurance Co., 90 id., 526.
Under § 263 of the Code a domestic corporation is on the same footing as an individual.
Judgment and order denying new trial affirmed, with costs.
Yam Wyck, J., concurs.