Brecht v. Jagger

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brecht v. Jagger

172 A.D. 880, 158 N.Y.S. 1017, 1916 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6046

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 12, 1916

StatusPublished

This text of 172 A.D. 880 (Brecht v. Jagger) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brecht v. Jagger, 172 A.D. 880, 158 N.Y.S. 1017, 1916 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6046 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The ends of justice will be promoted by trying these issues in Orange county. It was -there that plaintiff’s assignors resided and rendered the services sued for. We have to consider the county where the cause of action arose (Jacina v. Lemmi, 155 App. Div. 397) rather than the convenience of a plaintiff suing upon an assigned claim. (Belden v. Schapiro, 138 App. Div. 669.) Plaintiff’s opposing affidavits array ten witnesses, mostly cumulative, for the purpose of showing that defendant was trustee under the agreement of April 24,1914, and acted as such. But this agreement does not appear to be disputed, and plaintiff’s acts under it may apparently be proved by witnesses in Newburgh without cumulative testimony from New York.

The order appealed from should, therefore, be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to appellant to abide the event, and defendant’s motion granted to change the place of trial to Orange county.

Jenks, P. J., Carr, Stapleton, Rich and Putnam, JJ., concurred.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to appellant to abide the. event, and motion granted.

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

Per Curiam:

The ends of justice will be promoted by trying these issues in Orange county. It was -there that plaintiff’s assignors resided and rendered the services sued for. We have to consider the county where the cause of action arose (Jacina v. Lemmi, 155 App. Div. 397) rather than the convenience of a plaintiff suing upon an assigned claim. (Belden v. Schapiro, 138 App. Div. 669.) Plaintiff’s opposing affidavits array ten witnesses, mostly cumulative, for the purpose of showing that defendant was trustee under the agreement of April 24,1914, and acted as such. But this agreement does not appear to be disputed, and plaintiff’s acts under it may apparently be proved by witnesses in Newburgh without cumulative testimony from New York.

The order appealed from should, therefore, be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to appellant to abide the event, and defendant’s motion granted to change the place of trial to Orange county.

Jenks, P. J., Carr, Stapleton, Rich and Putnam, JJ., concurred.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to appellant to abide the. event, and motion granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 A.D. 880, 158 N.Y.S. 1017, 1916 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6046, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brecht-v-jagger-nyappdiv-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack