International Life Assurance Co. v. Sweetland

14 Abb. Pr. 240
New York Supreme Court·Decided March 15, 1862·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Barnard, J.

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] York 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

International Life Assurance Co. v. Sweetland, 14 Abb. Pr. 240 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1862).

14 Abb. Pr. 240 (International Life Assurance Co. v. Sweetland) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Sylvester v. Lewis
55 A.D. 470 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1900)
Veeder v. . Baker
83 N.Y. 156 (New York Court of Appeals, 1880)
People v. Kingsley
15 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 233 (New York Supreme Court, 1876)