Corp. of New York v. Dawson

New York Supreme Court

Corp. of New York v. Dawson

2 Johns. Cas. 335

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 15, 1801

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 2 Johns. Cas. 335 (Corp. of New York v. Dawson) 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

Corp. of New York v. Dawson, 2 Johns. Cas. 335 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1801).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This action is founded on the privity of contract, and is not local in its nature. It was, therefore,

not indispensable to lay the venue in Kings. Actions founded on the privity of estate are local, as in debt by the as-, signee or devisee of the lessor, against the lessee, or by the lessor against the assignee of a lease, or in covenant *by the grantee of the reversion, against the assignee of a lease. (1 Wils. 165. 6 Mod. 194. 1 Salk. 80.) In this case, the action is founded on the privity of contract only, either expressed or implied. It follows that the venue is not necessarily controlled by the circumstance of the premises being situated in King’s county.(

a) It is settled, that in transitory actions the court may, and ought, to change the venue for the purpose of an impartial trial. (2 Burr. 1564.) But no special ground is here stated to show that a fair trial cannot be had in New York. The interest supposed to exist in favor of the success of the cor[336]*336poration is too uncertain and remote. It is, in truth, seldom, if ever, felt or known ; and an independent jury may as probably be obtained in this as in any other county. It would be extremely inconvenient to change the venue, on this formal objection, in all cases in which the corporation may be concerned; and we think it ought not to be' done, unless there appear substantial reasons to support the objection.

Motion denied,(b)

(a) See 2 Rev. Statutes of New York, 409; But see Code of Procedure, 103-105.

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

Per Curiam.

This action is founded on the privity of contract, and is not local in its nature. It was, therefore,

not indispensable to lay the venue in Kings. Actions founded on the privity of estate are local, as in debt by the as-, signee or devisee of the lessor, against the lessee, or by the lessor against the assignee of a lease, or in covenant *by the grantee of the reversion, against the assignee of a lease. (1 Wils. 165. 6 Mod. 194. 1 Salk. 80.) In this case, the action is founded on the privity of contract only, either expressed or implied. It follows that the venue is not necessarily controlled by the circumstance of the premises being situated in King’s county.(

a) It is settled, that in transitory actions the court may, and ought, to change the venue for the purpose of an impartial trial. (2 Burr. 1564.) But no special ground is here stated to show that a fair trial cannot be had in New York. The interest supposed to exist in favor of the success of the cor[336]*336poration is too uncertain and remote. It is, in truth, seldom, if ever, felt or known ; and an independent jury may as probably be obtained in this as in any other county. It would be extremely inconvenient to change the venue, on this formal objection, in all cases in which the corporation may be concerned; and we think it ought not to be' done, unless there appear substantial reasons to support the objection.

Motion denied,(b)

(a) See 2 Rev. Statutes of New York, 409; But see Code of Procedure, 103-105.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Johns. Cas. 335, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/corp-of-new-york-v-dawson-nysupct-1801.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack