45 Barb. 327 | N.Y. Sup. Ct. | 1865
Lead Opinion
I am not willing to concede that even in cases of personal torts committed in foreign countries, the Supreme Court has not jurisdiction of an action for damages where the parties are within the jurisdiction of the court. That jurisdiction depends upon the person and not on the place where the acts complained of took j>lace. Although in such cases some judges have expressed an opinion that the courts could refuse to exercise such jurisdiction, I do not understand the rule to have been extended to actions for fraud in regard to property, even if such fraud was committed in another country. That fact might have weight upon a question of hail, hut ought not to on a question of jurisdiction. A party may be without any redress if a person may commit a fraud in another state and immediately
I concur with Davies, J. in Mussina v. Belden, (6 Abb. Rep. 165,) in the decision that the courts of this state have jurisdiction of actions for torts in regard to property, although they were committed out of the state, and although the parties were resident abroad, if the defendant was served with process in the state. The judgment should be affirmed.
Geo. G. Barnard, J. concurred.
Dissenting Opinion
This is an action brought by the plaintiff, a citizen of Missouri, against the defendant, a citizen of Connecticut, for combining and conspiring with other citizens of the latter state to defraud him by false representations. The defendant was one of several directors of an insurance company, doing business in Hartford, Connecticut, under a charter from that state, entitled The Protection Insurance Company, having agencies at various places throughout the United States, especially at St. Louis, Missouri. The plaintiff alleges that, relying on the representations of the defendant and other directors of the company that it was in a sound condition, and possessed of a large capital, wholly unimpaired, of not less than $200,000, he insured in said company certain property at St. Louis, October 18, 1853; that the same was injured by fire November 11, 1853; that he has performed all the conditions of the policy; that the company failed September 7, 1854, and has ever since continued insolvent, and has never paid the plaintiff's loss, and that he has thereby suffered damage in the sum of $4149.10. This, then, is clearly an action of tort, brought by the citizen of one foreign state against the citizen of another foreign state, for alleged injuries committed in one or both of those states. Shall we entertain jurisdiction of actions originating under such circumstances and between such parties ? In other words, shall we sustain the judiciary establishments of our
This question, or rather questions nearly similar to it, have been presented in a few previous instances to our courts. There are, undoubtedly, several reported cases where they have entertained such a jurisdiction; but the first of which I have any knowledge, in which the question was directly presented and passed upon, is Gardner v. Thomas, (14 John. 134.) There, it was indeed asserted by the justice who delivered the opinion in that case, that this court may take cognizance of a tort committed op the high seas on board of a foreign vessel, both parties being citizens of the country to which the vessel belongs, but that it should rest in the sound discretion of the court to afford juris diction or not, according to the circumstances of the case; and, as it did not appear that the plaintiff in error, who was master, and the defendant, who was a seaman, of the vessel, did not intend to return to their own country, it was held that the defendant in error ought to have been left to seek redress in the courts of his own country on his return; and the judgment below was reversed. In Johnson v. Dalton, (1 Cowen, 543,) the same principles are asserted, stating that the courts should decline interference in ordinary cases ; but, as the defendant in error, on whom the assault had been committed, had been legally discharged from the vessel in this country, the court upheld the jurisdiction. In Smith v. Bull, (17 Wend. 323,) which has been frequently quoted in relation to this subject, it was only decided that an action for an injury to the person committed beyond the territorial limits of this state, is transitory and may be brought in any court of common pleas in this state; but it did not appear that either party was a resident of another state, but on the contrary, it may be very safely inferred that both parties were residents of this state, who crossed the Susquehanna together from Tioga county, in this state, to Tioga county in Pennsylvania, where one made an assault upon the other. Of course this decision can have no
Judgment affirmed.
Ingraham, Geo. G. Barnard and Clerke, Justices.]