Duryee v. Orcott

9 Johns. 248
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedAugust 15, 1812
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 9 Johns. 248 (Duryee v. Orcott) 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
Duryee v. Orcott, 9 Johns. 248 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1812).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In Ross v. Lown, (8 Johns. Rep. 354.) the court said, that thg rule laid down in Manning v. Downing, (2 Johns. Rep. 453.) had not been extended to a case for trespass tie bonis asportatis ; and in that case, we adopted the practice of the king’s bench, in England, and required the plaintiff to stipulate to give material evidence arising in Onondaga, to entitle him to retain the venue there, it appearing that the plaintiff had two witnesses [249]*249residing in Onondaga, and the defendant four in Saratoga, in which latter county the cause of action arose.

There are transitory actions, in which the venue is altogether optional with the plaintiff. In this class we have placed, generally, all actions arising on contract. It includes, also, actions

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

Related

Wilhelmi v. Leonard
13 Iowa 330 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1862)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
9 Johns. 248, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duryee-v-orcott-nysupct-1812.