Brodhead v. Stanton

New York Supreme Court

Brodhead v. Stanton

2 How. Pr. 278

DecidedSeptember 15, 1846

StatusPublished

This text of 2 How. Pr. 278 (Brodhead v. Stanton) 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

Brodhead v. Stanton, 2 How. Pr. 278 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1846).

Pincite

Opinion

Bronson, Chief Justice.

Held, that where one defendant was served with declaration, and the other not served, the defendant served might move at once to change the venue; and if the other defendant should be served before motion made, the venue would be changed as to the defendant moving.

In regard to the objection to plaintiffs’ affidavit, held, that the affidavit was defective; that the same formality was required, in an affidavit to oppose a motion to change a venue, as in making the motion. Motion granted.

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

Bronson, Chief Justice.

Held, that where one defendant was served with declaration, and the other not served, the defendant served might move at once to change the venue; and if the other defendant should be served before motion made, the venue would be changed as to the defendant moving.

In regard to the objection to plaintiffs’ affidavit, held, that the affidavit was defective; that the same formality was required, in an affidavit to oppose a motion to change a venue, as in making the motion. Motion granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 How. Pr. 278, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brodhead-v-stanton-nysupct-1846.