Brower v. Husted

New York Supreme Court

Brower v. Husted

17 N.Y.S. 707, 44 N.Y. St. Rep. 746, 63 Hun 628, 1892 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 466

DecidedFebruary 8, 1892

StatusPublished

This text of 17 N.Y.S. 707 (Brower v. Husted) 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

Brower v. Husted, 17 N.Y.S. 707, 44 N.Y. St. Rep. 746, 63 Hun 628, 1892 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 466 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

Barnard, P. J.

The Ridgewood Ice Company is a domestic corporation. Its principal place of business was in Brooklyn until the receiver was appointed. The object of the action brought by the receiver is to set aside three mortgages given by the corporation. None of the parties reside in Westchester county. Two of the mortgages sought to be set aside affect real estate situate in Kings county. There is no property, real or personal, in Westchester county to be affected by the judgment. The place of trial belongs of right in Kings county. Code, § 982. The principal contesting defendants, except the defendant Downer, and the attorney general, as well as the plaintiff, consented to the change of place of trial. The papers show that. Kings county is the best place to subserve the convenience of witnesses. It seems that no one lives in Westchester county who will be convenienced by the place of trial being returned there. The order should therefore be affirmed, with costs and disbursements.

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

Barnard, P. J.

The Ridgewood Ice Company is a domestic corporation. Its principal place of business was in Brooklyn until the receiver was appointed. The object of the action brought by the receiver is to set aside three mortgages given by the corporation. None of the parties reside in Westchester county. Two of the mortgages sought to be set aside affect real estate situate in Kings county. There is no property, real or personal, in Westchester county to be affected by the judgment. The place of trial belongs of right in Kings county. Code, § 982. The principal contesting defendants, except the defendant Downer, and the attorney general, as well as the plaintiff, consented to the change of place of trial. The papers show that. Kings county is the best place to subserve the convenience of witnesses. It seems that no one lives in Westchester county who will be convenienced by the place of trial being returned there. The order should therefore be affirmed, with costs and disbursements.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 N.Y.S. 707, 44 N.Y. St. Rep. 746, 63 Hun 628, 1892 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 466, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brower-v-husted-nysupct-1892.