Case Name: Eugene Higgins et al., App'lts, v. William C. Dewey, Resp't
Court: New York City Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1890-12-27
Citations: 34 N.Y. St. Rep. 692
Docket Number: 
Parties: Eugene Higgins et al., App’lts, v. William C. Dewey, Resp’t.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 34
Pages: 692–695

Head Matter:
Eugene Higgins et al., App’lts, v. William C. Dewey, Resp’t.
(City Court of New York,
General Term,
Filed December 27, 1890.)
Arrest—Exemption from—Person inveigled into the state.
Defendant, an officer of a corporation in Massachusetts, wrote plaintiffs, that a meeting of creditors would be held about the 26th inst. Plaintiffs wrote saying they would like to see him before he went to the meeting. On the 30th defendant came to Mew York and while here was arrested on an order procured by them. Held, that defendant was brought into this. state by the letter written by plaintiffs and while here was exempt from, arrest at their instance.
(Fitzsimons, J., dissents.)
Appeal from order setting aside the' order of arrest and the service thereof, on the ground of fraud in the service, to wit, in. inveigling the defendant within the jurisdiction of the court.
Gruber, Bard & Landon, for app’lts ; F. A. Burnham, for resp’t.

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 (Webster's Die.) In a legal sense (as applicable to 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., N.S., 331; Carpenter v. Spooner, 2 Code Rep., 140; affid., 2 Sandf., 717; 3 Code Rep., 23; Metcalf v. Clark,, 41 Barb., 45. The defendant wrote to the plaintiffs from Palmer, Mass, Sept 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 22, 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 16, and the papers sworn to September 17, but the order to arrest was not granted until September 30. The plaintiffs swear that, although they contemplated arresting the defendant, they abandoned the intention until after they had conversed with him on September 30, and that his statements were so unsatisfactory that they instructed their attorney to proceed with the arrest, and proceedings were thereupon institued.
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. B. & 0. R. R. Co., 46 N. Y., Superior Ct., 377 ; S. C., on appeal, 87 N. Y., 355 ; Browning v. Abrams, 51 How., 172, limiting Adriance v. Lagrave, 59 N. Y., 110, and Lagrave's Case, 14 Abb., N. S., 333n. We feel constrained to hold, however, that the letter written by the plaintiffs brought the defendant on to Hew 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, Oh. J., and Van Wyck, J., concur.