Duryee v. Orcott

9 Johns. 248
New York Supreme Court·Decided August 15, 1812·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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

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

9 Johns. 248 (Duryee v. Orcott) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

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