Case Name: VOGEL v. BANKS et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1901-04-19
Citations: 70 N.Y.S. 1010
Docket Number: 
Parties: VOGEL v. BANKS et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 70
Pages: 1010–1011

Head Matter:
(60 App. Div. 459.)
VOGEL v. BANKS et al.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
April 19, 1901.)
1; Municipal Court—Jurisdiction.
The municipal court of the city of New York has jurisdiction of an action to recover $500 for conversion of personalty;
2. Same—Removal of Cause—Estoppel to Deny Jurisdiction.
Where an action is brought in the municipal court for conversion of property to the value of $500, and upon giving the bond required by Laws 1897, c. 378, § 1366, the case was removed to the county court, defendants are estopped to assert that such court has not jurisdiction of their persons.
8., Conversion—Pleading.
Where, in conversion, the defense was a general denial, title in a stranger to the suit cannot be shown without connecting defendants with it, and pleading such fact. ' , ' ■ ,
Appeal from. Kings county court.
1 . Action by Herman Vogel against A. Bleecker Banks and others in the. municipal court for unlawful conversion of personalty. From a judgment for plaintiff for $500 entered in the county court, and from an order denying a new trial, defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
The following is the opinion of the county court (HURD, J.):
“This action was commenced in the municipal court. That court had jurisdiction of the persons of the defendants and of the subject of the action. Worthington v. Accident Co., 164 N. Y. 81, 58 N. E. 102; Dodge Mfg. Co. v. Nassau Show-Case Co., 44 App. Div. 603, 61 N. Y. Supp. 111; Irwin v. Railway Co., 38 App. Div. 253, 57 N. Y. Supp. 21; Kantro v. Armstrong, 44 App. Div. 506, 60 N. Y. Supp. 970. The defendants answered upon the merits, and gave the bond required by section 1366 of the charter ■ (Laws 1897, c. 378), and removed the case to this court. This court had ■ • jurisdiction of the cause of action, which is a money demand for $500. Const, art. 6, § 14; Code Civ. Proc. § 340. Upon principle and authority, I think that the defendants are estopped to say that the court has not jurisdiction of their persons. McMahon v. Sherman, 14 N. Y. St. Rep. 637; Patten v. Neal, 62 How. Prac. 158; Clapp v. Graves, 26 N. Y. 418; Plankroad Co. v. Baker, 12 How. Prac. 371; Bunker v. Langs, 76 Hun, 543, 28 N. Y. Supp. 210. The defense was a general denial. The conversion could not be justified by showing title in a stranger to the suit without connecting the defendants with it. There was no such plea, and no such question was before the court. Wheeler v. Lawson, 103 N. Y. 40, 8 N. E. 360. Motion for a new trial denied; 5 per cent, extra allowance to plaintiff. Stay of 20 days after entry of judgment.”
Argued before GOODRICH, P. J., and JERKS, WOODWARD, HIRSOHBERG, and SEWELL, JJ.
John C. Coleman, for appellants.
David Teese, for respondent.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Judgment affirmed, with costs, on opinion of HURD, County Judge.