From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bogert v. Otto Gas Engine Works

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 1, 1898
28 App. Div. 463 (N.Y. App. Div. 1898)

Summary

In Bogert v. Otto Gas Engine Works (supra) the question arose upon an appeal from an order directing the service of a summons by publication.

Summary of this case from Herbert v. Montana Diamond Co.

Opinion

April Term, 1898.

Charles H. Broas, for the appellant.

Francis W. Cheesman, for the respondent.


Section 1780 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that an action against a foreign corporation may be maintained by a resident of the State for any cause of action. The complaint alleges merely that the plaintiff is engaged in business in this State, and does not allege that he is a resident, and further alleges that the defendant is a foreign corporation. The allegations of the complaint are insufficient to establish jurisdiction. Upon the complaint and an affidavit, which sets up no other jurisdictional facts, the order was granted for the publication of the summons.

We think this was error. The allegation of the transaction of business within this State is not equivalent to an allegation of residence, and the failure of the plaintiff to allege residence within the State is a fatal defect.

The order is reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

All concurred.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted.


Summaries of

Bogert v. Otto Gas Engine Works

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 1, 1898
28 App. Div. 463 (N.Y. App. Div. 1898)

In Bogert v. Otto Gas Engine Works (supra) the question arose upon an appeal from an order directing the service of a summons by publication.

Summary of this case from Herbert v. Montana Diamond Co.

In Bogert v. Otto Gas Engine Works, 28 A.D. 463, the Appellate Division of the Second Department held merely that the papers on which publication was granted were insufficient for the reason that the complaint contained no allegation of residence and the affidavit submitted on the application contained "no other jurisdictional facts" than those alleged in the complaint.

Summary of this case from Grant v. Greene
Case details for

Bogert v. Otto Gas Engine Works

Case Details

Full title:JOHN L. BOGERT, Respondent, v . THE OTTO GAS ENGINE WORKS, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Apr 1, 1898

Citations

28 App. Div. 463 (N.Y. App. Div. 1898)
51 N.Y.S. 118

Citing Cases

O'Reilly v. N.B., A. N.Y. Steamboat Co.

" The same view was taken by the Supreme Court in the recent cases of Foster v. Electric Heat Regulator Co.,…

Herbert v. Montana Diamond Co.

It is not contended but that this complaint is good if the plaintiff has standing to maintain the action, and…