Austin v. Hinkley

13 How. Pr. 576
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 15, 1856
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 13 How. Pr. 576 (Austin v. Hinkley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Austin v. Hinkley, 13 How. Pr. 576 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1856).

Opinion

Paige, Justice.

The defendant swears to twenty-seven witnesses, residing in, and adjacent to the county of Clinton ; and the plaintiffs tó twenty-eight witnesses residing in the county of Washington. Both parties, in their respective affidavits, allege that their respective witnesses are necessary and male-rial on the trial.

As the plaintiff’s witnesses outnumber those of the defendant, the motion to change the place of trial must be denied.

This ground being sufficient to justify the denial of the motion, it is not necessary to pass upon the objections to the form of the defendant’s affidavit.

Where a party, in his affidavit, states the nature of the controversy, and shows how his witnesses are material, the affidavit may not be defective, although it does not conform literally to all the requirements of the former practice of the court.

The motion must be denied, without costs.

Under the old practice, no costs were allowed on motions to change the venue, unless the papers of the moving party were defective, in which case the motion was denied with costs. (4 John. 492.)

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Latimer v. Union Pacific Railway
43 Mo. 105 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1868)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
13 How. Pr. 576, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/austin-v-hinkley-nysupct-1856.