Botjer v. Dennis

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Botjer v. Dennis

145 A. 922, 7 N.J. Misc. 314, 1929 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 348

DecidedMarch 20, 1929

StatusPublished

This text of 145 A. 922 (Botjer v. Dennis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Botjer v. Dennis, 145 A. 922, 7 N.J. Misc. 314, 1929 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 348 (N.J. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Cueiam.

This is defendants’ rule to show cause why the venue should not be changed from the county of Hudson, where it laid in the complaint, to the county of Monmouth.

We have examined the depositions taken pursuant to the rule and laid before us. The result of our examination is that we are persuaded that the defendants are entitled to have the case tried in Monmouth county, and for that purpose to have the venue changed to that county.

Accordingly, it will be ordered that the venue be changed to the county of Monmouth.

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

Pee Cueiam.

This is defendants’ rule to show cause why the venue should not be changed from the county of Hudson, where it laid in the complaint, to the county of Monmouth.

We have examined the depositions taken pursuant to the rule and laid before us. The result of our examination is that we are persuaded that the defendants are entitled to have the case tried in Monmouth county, and for that purpose to have the venue changed to that county.

Accordingly, it will be ordered that the venue be changed to the county of Monmouth.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 A. 922, 7 N.J. Misc. 314, 1929 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 348, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/botjer-v-dennis-nj-1929.