Fairfield Lease Corp. v. Windsor Coin Op, Inc.

• Decision Date: 24 March 1972
• Docket Number: No. 101516,101516
• Citation: 29 Conn.Supp. 514,294 A.2d 342
• Court: Connecticut Court of Common Pleas
• Parties: FAIRFIELD LEASE CORPORATION v. WINDSOR COIN OP, INC., et al.

Page 342

294 A.2d 342

29 Conn.Supp. 514

FAIRFIELD LEASE CORPORATION v. WINDSOR COIN OP, INC., et al.

No. 101516.

Court of Common Pleas of Connecticut, Hartford County.

March 24, 1972.

Davidson & Chambliss, Westport, for plaintiff.

Fannie Himmelstein, Hartford, for named defendant.

Friedman, Friedman & Friedman, Hartford, for defendant Hartford National Bank.

McGUINNESS, Judge.

The plaintiff, assignee of a lease agreement between U-Vend, Inc., and the defendants, brings this action on a New York judgment obtained on November 13, 1969, in the amount of $7480.75. The defendants have filed defenses claiming that they were never served with process nor did they ever make an appearance, either in person or through an attorney, in the New York action.

[29 Conn.Supp. 515] Paragraph 22 of the lease agreement provides as follows: '22. This agreement shall be deemed to have been made in the State of New York, regardless of the order in which the signatures of the parties shall be affixed hereto, and shall be interpreted, and the rights and liabilities of the parties here determined, in accordance with the laws of the State of New York, and as part of the consideration for the lessor's executing this lease, lessee hereby agrees that all actions or proceedings arising directly or indirectly from this lease shall be litigated only in Courts having situs within the State of New York, and Lessee hereby consents to the jurisdiction of any local, State or Federal court located within the State of New York and waives the personal service of any and all process upon Lessee herein, and consents that all such service of process may be made by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, directed to the Lessee at the address hereinabove stated; and service so made shall be complete two (2) days after the same shall have been posted as aforesaid.'

There is no dispute that the defendants were served by registered mail, return receipt requested, and that they had notice of the pendency of the action.

There is ample authority that parties to a lease agreement or contract may consent to the jurisdiction of another court and agree upon the type of notice to be given in the event of litigation.

In De Dood v. Pullman Co., 57 F.2d 171, the United States Court of Appeals for the second circuit held: 'If a court has jurisdiction over the subject-matter of a controversy, it may acquire jurisdiction over the person of a defendant by his consent as well as by its own lawful process. Such consent may be given in various ways (see 44 Harv.L.Rev. 1276, note 2, and cases there cited) and may be subject to conditions; for example, a person beyond the territorial boundaries of a court may agree to submit himself to its jurisdiction provided notice of suit or a summons shall be there served upon him. If the condition put upon his consent is complied with, judicial opinion holds that he is regularly before the court, although such service, in the absence of consent, would be wholly ineffectual. See Gilbert v. Burnstine, 255 N.Y. 348, 355, 174 N.E. 706, 73 A.L.R. 1453 . . .; Wilson v. Seligman, 144 U.S. 41, 44, 12 S.Ct. 541, 36 L.Ed. 338 . . .; Grover & Baker Sewing Mach. Co. v. Radcliffe, 137 U.S. 287, 298, 11 S.Ct. 92, 34 L.Ed. 670 . . ..'

Gilbert v. Burnstine, 255 N.Y. 348, 355, 174 N.E. 706, 708 quoted with approval from Scott, Fundamentals of Procedure, pp. 39-41: ". . . Jurisdiction is conferred when the defendant enters a general appearance in an action, that is, an appearance for some purpose other than that of raising the objection of lack of jurisdiction over him. A stipulation waiving service has the same effect. The defendant may, before suit is brought, give a power of attorney to confess judgment or appoint an agent to accept service, or agree that service by any other method shall be sufficient. The defendant in all these cases has submitted to the control of the state and of the court over him."

In National Equipment Rental, Ltd. v. Szukhent, 375 U.S. 311, 315, 84 S.Ct. 411, 414, 11 L.Ed.2d 354, a case involving service on an agent, the court said: 'And it is settled, as the courts below recognized, that parties to a contract may agree in advance to submit to the jurisdiction of a given c...