From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tannenbaum v. Natchtigall

Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Oct 1, 1899
29 Misc. 759 (N.Y. App. Term 1899)

Opinion

October, 1899.

Wm. Klingenstein, for appellant.

Benno Loewy, for respondent.


The record fails to show that the defendant is a resident within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Court, and it has been repeatedly held that all the facts necessary to give an inferior court jurisdiction must appear in the record (Frees v. Ford, 6 N.Y. 176; Gilbert v. York, 111 id. 544) and that to all such courts the rule necessarily applies, that their jurisdiction must appear and no presumption can be invoked in their favor. Tyroler v. Gummersbach, 28 Misc. 151.

Present: FREEDMAN, P.J.; MacLEAN and LEVENTRITT, JJ.

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


Summaries of

Tannenbaum v. Natchtigall

Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Oct 1, 1899
29 Misc. 759 (N.Y. App. Term 1899)
Case details for

Tannenbaum v. Natchtigall

Case Details

Full title:MOSES TANNENBAUM, Respondent, v . SIMON NATCHTIGALL, Appellant

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term

Date published: Oct 1, 1899

Citations

29 Misc. 759 (N.Y. App. Term 1899)

Citing Cases

Weinstein v. Douglas

Hunt v. Hunt, 72 N.Y. 217. Municipal Courts are creatures of the statute and have no jurisdiction except such…

City Button Works v. Cohn

The Municipal Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and its jurisdiction will not be presumed, but all the…