Opinion
07-22-1933
FRAXAM AMUSEMENT CORPORATION v. SKOURAS THEATRE CORPORATION et al.
William Harris, of Newark, for complainant. Merritt Lane, of Newark, for defendant Big U Film Exchange, Inc.
Syllabus by the Court.
A foreign corporation, which has no office, agent, or place of business within this state, named as defendant in a cause institutedIn the court of chancery, which has not been legally served with process, may raise the question of the court's jurisdiction over it by ex parte application or filing a petition for leave to appear specially therefor.
Suit by the Fraxam Amusement Corporation against the Skouras Theatre Corporation, the Big U Film Exchange, Incorporated, and others. On petition of the defendant Big IT Film Exchange, Incorporated, for leave to file special appearance to contest the court's jurisdiction over it.
Petition granted.
See, also (N. J. Ch.) 167 A. 672; (N. J. Ch.) 167 A. 674.
William Harris, of Newark, for complainant.
Merritt Lane, of Newark, for defendant Big U Film Exchange, Inc.
FALLON, Vice Chancellor.
This matter is now before the court on petition of defendant Big U Film Exchange, Inc., for leave to file special appearance to contest the court's jurisdiction over it. I am of the opinion that the application of the petitioner in the matter sub judice should be granted, and I will advise an order accordingly. The proofs herein show that the defendant Big U Film Exchange, Inc., is a foreign corporation, which has no office, agent, or place of business within this state. The process (order to show cause) issued herein, which was directed against said defendant and others, was not served within this state. Service is alleged to have been made in New York. I deem it unnecessary to comment upon the manner of service in New York, inasmuch as it is manifest from the proofs submitted that the service was insufficient to confer jurisdiction upon this court over said defendant. The defendant does not question the jurisdiction of this court over the subject-matter of the complainant's bill; it merely denies the jurisdiction of the court over the defendant as a corporate body. I am of the opinion that said defendant has a clear right to question the jurisdiction of this court over it, and to demand, in limine, the judgment of the court as to whether it should answer the bill of complaint or the order to show cause issued thereunder. Wilson v. American Palace Car Co., 65 N. J. Eq. 730, 55 A. 907; Puster v. Parker Mercantile Co., 70 N. J. Eq. 771, 67 A. 1102. In Spoor-Thompson Mach. Co. v. Bennett, etc., Co., 105 N. J. Eq. 108, at page 112, 147 A. 202, 204, I held: "It is proper practice to make an ex parte application or file a petition for leave to appear specially to contest the jurisdiction of the court."