Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

99 A.D. 541

Frees v. Blyth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · decided 1904-07-01

Appeal by the plaintiff, Thomas H. Frees, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendant, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 14th day of December, 1903, upon the dismissal of the complaint by direction of the court after a trial at the Kings County Trial Term, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 11th day of January, 1904, denying the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.

Relies on Thompson v. . Burhans · Gilbert v. . York · Cook v. . Whipple

Decided 1904-07-01

Jenks, J.:

¶1This is an action upon a judgment recovered in the City Court of Yew York upon a default. That court, though enumerated as a court of record in section 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, “ is only a local statutory court of inferior jurisdiction.” (McCann v. Gerding, 29 Misc. Rep. 283.) “ The facts necessary to the jurisdiction will not be presumed, but must be made to appear affirmatively.” (Beaudrias v. Hogan, 16 App. Div. 38. See, too, Gilbert v. York, 111 N. Y. 544.) It appears from the record of the judgment roll that the affidavit of the service of the summons, with notice, is without venue. It is, therefore, a nullity. (Thompson v. Burhans, 61 N. Y. 52, 63; Rogers v. Pell, 154 id. 518, 529; Saril v. Payne, 4 N. Y. Supp. 897; Babcock v. Kuntzsch, 85 Hun, 33.) The question of any amendment (Cook v. Whipple, 55 N. Y. 150, 166) is not in this case.

¶2Even though the rule, that the jurisdiction of such a court is never presumed, applies only to questions of jurisdiction of the subject-matter, and that in other respects the rule as to courts of general jurisdiction obtains, as some authorities have it (17 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law [2d ed.], 1083), yet this will not avail the appellant. In Smith v. Central Trust Co. (154 N. Y. 333, 341) it is held that the presumptions in support of superior courts of general jurisdiction only apply to such jurisdictional facts as to which the record is silent, and not otherwise, the court saying: “ When it affirmatively appears, however, that any essential step was omitted, the presumption in favor of jurisdiction is destroyed and a presumption against jurisdiction at once arises.”

¶3The answer of the defendant denies the allegations of the complaint indices verba, as “alleged or mentioned in the paragraph of the plaintiffs complaint,” referring to such paragraph by its number. Though not beyond criticism as containing a negative pregnant, it may be held sufficient, certainly on appeal. (Donovan v. Main, 74 App. Div. 44; Wall v. Buffalo Water Works Co., 18 N. Y. 119; Stuber v. McEntee, 142 id. 200.)

¶4The judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs.

¶5All concurred.

¶6Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

/99/ad/541 · .json · Public domain