
    The Progressive Power Co., Respondent, v. The Wrought Iron Bridge Co., Appellant.
    (New York Common Pleas
    Additional General Term,
    August, 1895.)
    A District Court has no jurisdiction of an action between foreign corporations, although the defendant has an office for the transaction of business within the jurisdictional limits of the court, unless the property in question -was situated, or the contract sued upon was made, or the cause of action arose, within the state.
    Appeal from a judgment of the District Court in the city of New York for the first judicial district in favor of the plaintiff.
    Action for work, labor and services.
    
      Arthur H. Smith, for appellant.
    
      James JP. Lowry, for respondent.
   Bischoff, J.

The evidence adduced with regard to 'the contract sued upon supports the plaintiff’s recovery, and the sole point in the case involves a question of jurisdiction. In our view this question is to be solved favorably to the appellant.

It is conceded that" the plaintiff is a foreign corporation, not doing business within the state,- and that the defendant is also a foreign corporation, but having an office for the transaction of business within the jurisdictional limits of the. District Court wherein the trial was had.

There is no question as to the situs of property -in the case, and the record is silent as to the place where the contract was . made or where the cause of action arose; hence, under the provisions of. section 1780 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the action was not to be entertained by any court, of this state.

The fact that the parties were foreign corporations being shown, the restrictions contained within the statute (Code Civ. Proc. § 1780) presented conditions upon, the existence of which the power of the court to determine the action was dependent. Perry v. Erie Transfer Co., 28 Abb. N. C. 430, and note. Thus, failing any proof that this case met one of these conditions, the court was necessarily without jurisdiction to-adjudge the rights of the parties.

Section 321& of the Code, which appears to he relied upon by the respondent, merely cedes- jurisdiction to the District Court's of an action against a foreign corporation having an office within the .city. That section certainly does- not by implication repeal section 1780 of the Code for the purpose of granting greater jurisdiction to the District Courts than may be exercised by courts of record.

Under section 3215 the District Courts obtain a limited jurisdiction over actions against foreign corporations, the statute obviously intending the niaintenance of an action against such a corporation in these courts only when the defendant has an ’ office for the transaction of business in the proper locality and when the plaintiff may bring suit, under our statute, within this state. The courts of record, under section 1780 of the Code, are not confined jurisdictionálly to actions against foreign. corporation^ doing business within sovereign or municipal limits, the conditions expressed in the statute being, fulfilled.

The necessary jurisdictional facts may possibly be brought out upon a new trial.

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

Giegerich, J., concurs.

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