
    Lena Langman, by her Guardian ad litem, Respondent, v. L. A. Wilmot Milbury, Doing Business as the Milbury Atlantic Supply Co., Appellant.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term,
    May, 1900.)
    Municipal court o£ the city of Mew York — Jurisdiction not afforded hy defendant’s having a place of business in the city.
    The Municipal Court of the city of New York has no jurisdiction of a defendant unless the record shows that he is a resident, and his having a place of business in the city is not enough.
    Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of Hew York, borough of Manhattan, rendered in favor of the plaintiff upon a trial had before the court, without a jury.
    Henry L. Maxson, for appellant.
    Ho appearance for respondent.
   ■Per Curiam.

The fact that the defendant had, at the time of the trial, a place of business in the city of Hew York, does not satisfy the jurisdictional requirement. Proof of actual residence will alone suffice (Routenberg v. Schweitzer, 29 Misc. Rep. 653; affd., 50 App. Div. 218; and, since this proof is not furnished by the record, the judgment must be reversed and a new trial ordered. As the question was raised upon the trial, the reversal will be with costs, to abide the event.

Present: Beekman, P. J., Giegerich and O’Gorman, JJ.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to abide event.  