
    JULIA DE COURCY, Respondent, v. HENRY STEWART, Appellant
    
      Action will not lie in this State for trespass committed on lands in another State.
    
    Appeal from a judgment entered upon an order overruling a demurrer, interposed to tbe complaint on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction of the action, and that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
    The complaint, after alleging ownership and possession in the plaintiff of a farm at Westwood, in Bergen county, in the State of New Jersey, alleged that on or about the 4th of October, 1877, the defendant “wrongfully, unlawfully and maliciously trespassed •upon, said farm, and took forcible possession thereof, without even a color of right, and has continued in possession thereof until the present time,” and demanded judgment for the damages caused by these wrongful acts.
    The court, at General Term, said: “This is nothing but an action of trespass quaere clausum fregit, committed in another State, beyond the jurisdiction of our courts. It is well-settled that such an action cannot be.maintained in this State. (Hurd v. Miller, 2 Hilt-., 542; Watts v. Kinney, 23 Wend., 484; 8. C., affirmed, 6 Hill, 82.)
    “ The cases cited by the court below, which are supposed to hold the contrary view, are actions either to enforce specific performance of contracts, or for damages to lands situated in this State arising from nuisances located across the boundary line of the State, or for fraudulent conspiracies affecting lands in this State.”
    
      Charles Howard Williams, for the appellant. Samuel G. Courtney, for the respondent.
   Opinion

per Curiam.

Present — Davis, P. J., Beady and Barrett, JJ.

Judment reversed, and judgment ordered on tbe demurrer for tbe defendant, with costs.  