
    Newton C. Dealing, App’lt, v. The New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company, Resp’t.
    
      (New York Common Pleas, General Term,
    
    
      Filed June 27, 1887.)
    
    1. Pleadings—Attachment issued by a court of another state as DEFENSE HERE.
    Where an action is brought against a foreign corporation for wages, the defendant may plead in answer that the amount claimed has been attached in its hands as garnishee by writs of attachment issued by a competent tribunal in another state.
    2. Practice—Appeal, when allowed to the court of appeals.
    Leave will be granted to go to the court of appeals when questions arise that should be determined by the court of last resort, such as to determine the situs of the plaintiff’s claim, the power of the legislature of another state to- alter the right of a resident of this state, and whether a resident of this state should be permitted to reach property exempt by the laws of this state from execution, by suing a resident of this- state in the courts of another state.
    
      Appeal from a judgment rendered in the district court, in the city of New York, dismissing the complaint.
    The plaintiff sues to recover wages amounting to $80.31 for labor and services rendered to the. defendant at its offices in the city of New York.
    The defendant admits that the plaintiff earned the said sum of money and that it has not been paid to him, but refuses to pay the same and alleges as a defence that the whole of said sum of money has been attached in its hands as garnishee by two writs of attachment duly issued by a justice of the peace in the state of Connecticut, in two suits brought by A. M. Hitchcock & Co., creditors of the plaintiff in this suit against the plaintiff as principal, and the railroad company as garnishee.
    In the1 first of these suits was a judgment rendered for $87.78, full amount claimed
    Execution was issued and $33.65, the amount of Dealings’ wages then due, was collected from defendants as garnishee. Subsequently the second suit was commenced against the same parties on said judgment to recover the amount thereof, still remaining uncollected, and the wages oi Dealing which had been earned in the meantime, amounting go $51.85, were attached in the hands of the defendant as garnishee. In the second suit the writ of attachment is still in force and the respondent restrained thereby from disposing of the money due appellant for wages, amounting to $51.85, judgment has not been rendered in thaf suit.
    The respondent is a foreign corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Connecticut. The plaintiff and the attaching creditors are residents of the state of New York.
    
      Max Bayersdorfer, for app’lt; William E Barnett, for resp’t.
   Per Curiam.

We feel constrained oy oho force of the decision in Embree v. Hanna (5 Johns. 101), to affirm the judgment of the district court, but we give to the plaintiff the right to appeal to the court of appeals.

We give that right because we think that the court of last resort should determine.

(1) Whether the situs of the claim of dealing against the railroad company was in the state of New York, where Dealing lives, or in the state of Connecticut, where the company has its principal office.

(2) Whether it be in the power of the legislature of Connecticut to alter the rights of a resident of New York, who may never have been m Connecticut, by enacting that his intangible property, a mere jus ad rem, shall have a situs in Connecticut.

(3) Whether Hitchcock, a resident of Mount Vernon, N. Y., should be permitted to reach property exempt by the laws of New York from execution, by suing Dealing, also a resident of Mount Yemen, N. Y., in the courts of the state of Connecticut.  