Judges: Rodenbeck
Filed Date: 3/13/1929
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/18/2024
This action is one for damages for negligence in the operation of 'an automobile which occurred in the State of Pennsylvania. It does not appear where the parties reside, but, even if all the parties reside in Pennsylvania, it may be prosecuted in this State unless public policy forbids. (Loucks v. Standard Oil Co., 224 N. Y. 99, 106; Newman v. Goddard, 3 Hun, 70.) The liability depends upon the laws of the State where the cause of action arose. There is a presumption, however, with reference to an action of this sort, that the right to compensation is recognized by the laws of all the States. (McDonald v. Mallory, 77 N. Y. 546; Williams v. Scaife & Sons Co., 227 Fed. 922; Lauria v. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 241 id. 687.) The plaintiffs, therefore, were not required to set up the laws of Pennsylvania upon which they based their cause of action, unless they desired to claim the benefit of certain statutes. It was proper, however, for the defendant to allege the laws of that State under which he claims the plaintiffs were not entitled toorecover. The plaintiffs were not required to allege their residence in this State, in order to confer jurisdiction, but the question of jurisdiction may be raised at any time, and it is proper for the defendant to call attention to the omission of jurisdictional facts. The court may refuse jurisdictiop where none of the parties resides in the
Motion granted, striking out the matter above mentioned, with costs to abide event, and with leave to the defendant to serve amended answers within twenty days. So ordered.