Corp. of New York v. Dawson

2 Johns. Cas. 335
New York Supreme Court·Decided July 15, 1801·Published·Cited by 3 cases

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.(

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

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

2 Johns. Cas. 335 (Corp. of New York v. Dawson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Silberfeld v. Swiss Bank Corp.
183 Misc. 234 (New York Supreme Court, 1944)
Kiersted v. Orange & Alexandria Railroad
3 Thomp. & Cook 662 (New York Supreme Court, 1874)
Henwood v. Cheeseman
3 Serg. & Rawle 500 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1817)