Court Opinion

ID: 6143519
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-02-05 14:47:16.525042+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:54:45.338861
License: Public Domain

Brady, J. —
The Code, section 58, confers civil jurisdiction in certain actions, of which the present is one; and section 54 declares that no justice of the peace shall have cognizance of a civi action in certain cases, not including, however, actions against corporations. The constitution, sect. 3 of art. 8, declares that corporations shall have the right to sue and shall be subject to be sued in all courts, in like cases as natural persons. There can be no doubt that an action can be entertained by a justice against a resident corporation, and, as we shall see, that such corporation may be sued, by a non-resident plaintiff, by short summons. The 32d seetiou of the act abolishing imprisonment for debt (Session Laws, 1831, p. 403) provides, that whenever, by the provisions of section 81 of that act, no warrant can issue (and in this action no warrant could issue against the defendants), and the plaintiff shall be a non-resident of the county, and shall give like proof of the fact, and shall give the security required by law, the justice shall issue a summons, which may be made returnable not less than two or more than four days from the date thereof, and shall be served, &c. In this case the plaintiff was a non resident, and complied with the statute on obtaining the summons, and the court below acquired jurisdiction of the cause. This disposes of the objections to the validity of the plaintiff’s judgment.
We have frequently held that we cannot grant any relief under section 366 of the Code of Procedure, where the defendant has appeared, although the judgment be afterwards taken by de*304fault. Bunker v. Latson, 1 E. D. Smith, 410 ; Frost v. Hanmer, May Term, 1856 ; Gurtridge v. Stingerland, Feb. Term, 1856.
Judgment affirmed.