Ganz v. Edison Electric Illuminating Co.

New York Supreme Court

Ganz v. Edison Electric Illuminating Co.

29 N.Y.S. 810, 86 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 409, 61 N.Y. St. Rep. 344, 79 Hun 409

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedJune 18, 1894

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 29 N.Y.S. 810 (Ganz v. Edison Electric Illuminating Co.) 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

Ganz v. Edison Electric Illuminating Co., 29 N.Y.S. 810, 86 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 409, 61 N.Y. St. Rep. 344, 79 Hun 409 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

CULLEN, J.

This is an appeal from an order denying defendant’s motion to change the place of trial. The venue was laid in Westchester county, and the application wa's based on the ground that such was not the proper county, neither party residing therein. The facts were conceded, but the motion was resisted on the ground that the demand for change of place of trial was not. served till some hours after the service of the answer, though served upon the same day. We think that the demand was served in time. The general rule is that the court will not divide a day into fractions, except, for the purpose of guarding against injustice. Blydenburgh v. Cotheal, 5 How. Pr. 200; Jones v. Porter, 6 How. Pr. 286; Clute v. Clute, 4 Denio, 243; Small v. McChesney, 3 Cow. 19. 'Where the ends of justice do not demand it, the court will not inquire at what particular hour the process, pleadings, or notices in a cause were served.” Rogers v. Beach, 18 Wend. 533. As the demand was served in time, the application was one of right. The order appealed from should be reversed, with $10 costs, to abide the event. All concur.

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

CULLEN, J.

This is an appeal from an order denying defendant’s motion to change the place of trial. The venue was laid in Westchester county, and the application wa's based on the ground that such was not the proper county, neither party residing therein. The facts were conceded, but the motion was resisted on the ground that the demand for change of place of trial was not. served till some hours after the service of the answer, though served upon the same day. We think that the demand was served in time. The general rule is that the court will not divide a day into fractions, except, for the purpose of guarding against injustice. Blydenburgh v. Cotheal, 5 How. Pr. 200; Jones v. Porter, 6 How. Pr. 286; Clute v. Clute, 4 Denio, 243; Small v. McChesney, 3 Cow. 19. 'Where the ends of justice do not demand it, the court will not inquire at what particular hour the process, pleadings, or notices in a cause were served.” Rogers v. Beach, 18 Wend. 533. As the demand was served in time, the application was one of right. The order appealed from should be reversed, with $10 costs, to abide the event. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 N.Y.S. 810, 86 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 409, 61 N.Y. St. Rep. 344, 79 Hun 409, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ganz-v-edison-electric-illuminating-co-nysupct-1894.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack