Cheney v. Schuyler

20 N.Y.S. 546, 48 N.Y. St. Rep. 804, 65 Hun 626
New York Supreme Court·Decided October 20, 1892·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Van Brunt, P. J.

This action seems to have been brought for the "purpose of changing the venue of an action which the plaintiff in that action had .a right to have tried in another jurisdiction; in which action the plaintiff’s predecessor in title had intervened, been made a party, and answered, setting up his rights, and subsequent to which such predecessor had sold all his interest in the subject-matter to the plaintiff herein, who necessarily took his title subject to that which had been done by the owner in respect thereto. We know of no practice which justifies the bringing of an action to change the venue of another action, which has been already brought. The order should be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.

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

Cheney v. Schuyler, 20 N.Y.S. 546, 48 N.Y. St. Rep. 804, 65 Hun 626 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1892).

20 N.Y.S. 546 (Cheney v. Schuyler) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Colson v. Pelgram
182 N.E. 19 (New York Court of Appeals, 1932)