
    Margaret Elizabeth Rouge, Respondent, v. Gabriel Mark Rouge, Appellant.
    (New York Superior Court — General Term,
    December, 1895.)
    •1, Jurisdiction^New York Superior Court.
    An uncontradicted allegation in a complaint or affidavit that the plaintiff is “ now residing in the city of New York ”is sufficient to confer jurisdiction of the action upon the Superior Court, -
    8. Attachment—Personal injuries. ■
    An attachment may he granted, under section 635, subdivision 3, of the Code, as amended in 1895-, in an action brought "by a -wife for . alienation, of her husband’s affections.
    8. Same — Amount.
    The court may fix the amount of an attachment, issued in an action for personal injuries, at such sum as in his judgment will probably he recovered in the action. ’ .
    4. Same—Effect of amendment to section 635 of the.Code.
    The amendment of 1895 to subdivision 3 of section 635 "Of the Code affects only the remedy, and-applies to causes of action which accrued-prior to its passage.
    
      Rouge v. Rouge, 14 Mise. Rep. 481/ affirmed..
    Appeal from order of Special" Term -denying motion to vacate attachment and reducing the amount of such .attachment.. •
    Action for alienation of a husband’s affections brought by ,a wife against her husband’s father. " .
    
      
      David Murray, for appellant.
    
      Edward Gebhard, for respondent.
   Gildersleeve, J.

This action is for a personal injury. The plaintiff procured an attachment to he- issued for the amount demanded in the complaint. The defendant appeared specially for the purpose of moving to set aside the attachment on the ground that the papers upon which it was granted were insufficient. The motion was decided adversely to defendant, and an order was entered sustaining the attachment, hut reducing the amount for which defendant’s property was seized or impounded to the sum of $2,500. The appeal before us is from this order.

It is first urged by the appellant that the Superior Court of the city of Yew York has no jurisdiction in the case, for the reason that it does not appear that plaintiff is a resident of the city of Yfew York. This ground is obviously untenable, inasmuch as in the plaintiff’s uncontradicted affidavit upon which the attachment was granted she swears that she is “ now residing in the city of Yew York.” The claim of the defendant, that the granting Of the attachment under the facts as they appear give a retroactive effect to the provisions of section 635 of the Code of Civil Procediire, which went into operation September 1, 1895, cannot be maintained. The action was not commenced until after September 1, 1895. The statute in question did not create the cause of action, but is only remedial.

The plaintiff seems to have met all the requirements of section 635 of the Code. For these reasons, and the reasons stated in thie opinion of the learned Special Term judge, the order appealed from should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Freedman, J., concurs.-

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.  