From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Langman v. Milbury

Supreme Court, Appellate Term
May 1, 1900
31 Misc. 459 (N.Y. App. Term 1900)

Opinion

May, 1900.

Henry L. Maxson, for appellant.

No appearance for respondent.


The fact that the defendant had, at the time of the trial, a place of business in the city of New York, does not satisfy the jurisdictional requirement. Proof of actual residence will alone suffice (Routenberg v. Schweitzer, 29 Misc. 653; affd., 50 A.D. 218; and, since this proof is not furnished by the record, the judgment must be reversed and a new trial ordered. As the question was raised upon the trial, the reversal will be with costs, to abide the event.

Present: BEEKMAN, P.J., GIEGERICH and O'GORMAN, JJ.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to abide event.


Summaries of

Langman v. Milbury

Supreme Court, Appellate Term
May 1, 1900
31 Misc. 459 (N.Y. App. Term 1900)
Case details for

Langman v. Milbury

Case Details

Full title:LENA LANGMAN, by her Guardian ad litem, Respondent, v . L.A. WILMOT…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term

Date published: May 1, 1900

Citations

31 Misc. 459 (N.Y. App. Term 1900)
64 N.Y.S. 465