Metcufskie v. Philadelphia &. R. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 23 February 1922 |
| Citation | 116 A. 170 |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
| Parties | METCUFSKIE v. PHILADELPHIA &. R. RY. CO. |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Action by Thomas Metcufskie, an infant, by next friend, against the Philadelphia & Reading Railway Company. On motion to strike out complaint. Motion denied.
Argued November term, 1921, before SWAYZE, BLACK, and KATZENBACH, JJ.
John Winans, of New York City, for plaintiffs.
John F. Reger, of Somerville, for defendant.
An application was made in this case to strike out the plaintiff's complaint. The reasons stated for the application in the notice to strike out are these: Because the plaintiffs are nonresidents of New Jersey, the defendant is a foreign corporation, the cause of action set out in the complaint is to recover damages for personal injuries based on the alleged negligence of the defendant, which arose outside of the state of New Jersey, and is therefore not properly within the jurisdiction of the courts of New Jersey. The injury occurred on November 2, 1920, at Mt. Vernon and Centre streets in the borough of Shenandoah, county of Schuylkill, in the state of Pennsylvania.
The summons and complaint were served upon the defendant by the sheriff of Mercer county in Trenton, N. J. The venue is laid in Mercer county, the defendant company having made the necessary filings required by the state's laws to qualify it to do business in New Jersey as a foreign railroad corporation.
The basis of the motion is: To entertain such an action is contrary to the public policy of the state of New Jersey. This precise question does not seem to have been decided in our appellate courts in any reported decision. The case of Camden Rolling Mill Co. v. Swede Iron Co., 32 N. J. Law, 15, is not in point; on the other hand, in those cases which were brought in this state to recover damages for the destruction of property, growing out of the great fire in the city of New York in 1835, reported as the American Print Works v. Lawrence, 21 N. J. Law, 248, and Hale v. Lawrence, 21 N. J. Law, 714, at page 727 (47 Am. Dec. 190), it was said:
"While the courts of New Jersey will abstain from jurisdiction, where it is not clearly conferred by law, find whilst they will extend all proper courtesy to foreign courts and their decisions, they will not feel themselves at liberty to deny process and jurisdiction merely from considerations of courtesy to such courts, or from motives of convenience to themselves or suitors."
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anderson v. Del., L. & W. R. Co.
...47 Am. Dec. 190 (1848, Nevius, J.); Ackerson v. Erie Railway Co., 31 N.J.L. 309 (Sup.Ct. 1865, Beasley, C J.); Metcufskie v. P. & R. Railway Co., 97 N.J.L. 100, 116 A. 170 (Sup. Ct. 1922, Black, J.); Kopenhafer v. Pennsylvania R. R., K)6 N.J.L. 530, 148 A. 629 (1930, Hetfield, J.); Kryn et ......
-
Brainard v. N.Y., O. & W. Ry. Co.
...question, it would be a simple one, because it is well settled that this can be done under certain conditions. Metcufskie v. Phil. & Reading R. R., 97 N. J. Law, 100, 116 A. 170; Fortein v. D., L. & W. R. R. Co., 90 N. J. Law, 137, 100 A. 194; Ackerson v. Erie Railway Co., 31 N. J. Law, In ......
-
Kantakevich v. Del., L. & W. R. Co.
...N.J.L. 714, 47 Am.Dec. 190; Ackerson v. Erie Railway Co., 31 N.J.L. 309; Metcufskie v. Philadelphia & Reading Railway Co., 97 N.J.L. 100, 116 A. 170; Kopenhafer v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 106 N.J.L. 530, 148 A. 629. It is interesting to note in the case of Gardner v. Thomas, 14 Johns. 134, 7 A......
-
Kopenhafer v. Pa. R. Co.
...v. Erie Railway Co., 31 N. J. Law, 309; Fortein v. D., L. & W. R. R. Co., 90 N. J. Law, 137, 100 A. 194; Metcufskie v. P. & R. Railway Co., 97 N. J. Law, 100, 116 A. 170. The other ground upon which the defendant urges a reversal is based on the trial court's refusal to direct a verdict in ......