International Life Assurance Co. v. Sweetland
This text of 14 Abb. Pr. 240 (International Life Assurance Co. v. Sweetland) 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.
Opinion
The plaintiff is a foreign corporation, and the defendant resides in Madison county.
The proper place of trial is in that county.
The fact that plaintiff has an agency established in the city and county of New York does not affect the question. On this motion, the place of trial cannot be retained on the ground of convenience of witnesses. This is decided in 7 How. Pr., 356, and I see no reason for dissenting from that case. If plaintiff desires to have the place of trial in the city and county of New [241]*241York for convenience of witnesses, he must make a distinct motion therefor; in which case the defendant will be at liberty to show that convenience of witnesses requires the place of trial to be in Madison county.
Motion granted, with $10 costs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
14 Abb. Pr. 240, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/international-life-assurance-co-v-sweetland-nysupct-1862.