Slade v. Zeitfuss

• Citation: 59 A. 406,77 Conn. 457
• Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut
• Decision Date: 16 December 1904
• Parties: SLADE v. ZEITFUSS.

59 A. 406

77 Conn. 457

SLADE

v. ZEITFUSS.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Dec. 16, 1904.

Appeal from City Court of New Haven; Edwin C. Dow, Judge.

Action by Maxwell Slade against Otto P. Zeitfuss. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Benjamin Slade, for appellant.

John Keogh, for appellee.

HAMERSLEY, J. The nonnegotiable chose in action upon which this suit is brought is a claim for money which became due from the defendant to Lewisohn Bros, for the use and occupation of their store in New York by the defendant At the commencement of the action, Lewisohn Bros., or their legal representatives, were residents of New York. The defendant was a resident of Greenwich, in the county of Fairfield. The property attached consisted of a stock of goods situate in the defendant's store in Greenwich. The nominal plaintiff was a resident of the city of New Haven. The city court of New Haven has no jurisdiction of a cause where both parties are nonresidents, and no property within the city limits is attached. Unless the plaintiff was the equitable and bona fide owner of the chose in action sued upon, the city court had no jurisdiction, but the court of common pleas for Fairfield county, or the borough court of Greenwich, where the defendant resided, had jurisdiction.

The plea in abatement alleges, in substance: (1) That the plaintiff assignee is not the equitable and bona fide owner of the chose in action sued upon; (2) that the assignment to the plaintiff was made for the sole purpose of enabling the plaintiff to bring suit on the claim in his own name, and of thus procuring the city court to try a cause of which it did not in reality have jurisdiction. No question is raised as to the form of the plea, or to this mode of presenting the questions, but the plaintiff denied these allegations. The trial court found these issues of fact for the defendant. The judgment for the defendant followed as the necessary legal consequence of this finding. The appeal record discloses the subordinate facts from which the court drew these conclusions of fact. The only question of law we can pass upon is that urged in the plaintiff's brief, namely, the subordinate and evidential facts appearing in the record as found by the court are legally inconsistent with the ultimate facts found. It appears that Maxwell Slade, an attorney at law, resident and practicing in New Haven, and also having an office in New York, was employed by one Hugo S. Mack, an attorney in New York, and the local attorney of Lewisohn Bros., in respect to the collection of their claim against the defendant, to render his professional services to Lewisohn Bros., in the collection of the same claim; said Mack having authority from Lewisohn Bros., as their attorney, to so employ Slade. That in pursuance of such employment Slade, when he was in New York, had some consultations with Mack as to the collection of this claim, and also some correspondence with him and with the defendant. That after said consultations and correspondence, Mack, acting under the same authority as attorney for Lewisohn Bros., made on their behalf and in their name an agreement with Slade which was, in substance, as follows: Slade was to undertake the collection of the claim, and for that purpose to...