Saxton ex rel. Saxton v. Ocean City

187 A. 650, 14 N.J. Misc. 825, 1936 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 249
CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey
DecidedOctober 23, 1936
StatusPublished

This text of 187 A. 650 (Saxton ex rel. Saxton v. Ocean City) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Saxton ex rel. Saxton v. Ocean City, 187 A. 650, 14 N.J. Misc. 825, 1936 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 249 (N.J. 1936).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The defendant seeks to have the venue in a local action changed from Camden county, where the plaintiffs reside, to Cape May county, where the accident occurred.

The action is to recover for personal injuries sustained on the boardwalk at Ocean City. Many municipal officers and employes will be necessary witnesses. The plaintiffs will be obliged to establish their case by calling a number of medical witnesses resident in Camden. Since the cost and inconvenience to the public must be considered, there is more than a mere inconvenience in requiring the defendant to appear in this suit at Camden, the county seat - of Camden county. Keeley v. Belmar, 97 N. J. L. 98; 116 Atl. Rep. 273; Hesselbrock v. Burlington County, 111 N. J. L. 177; 168 Atl. Rep. 45.

The venue should be changed to the county in which the cause of action arose. A rule to that effect may be entered.

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

Related

Hesselbrock v. County of Burlington
168 A. 45 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1933)
Keeley v. Borough of Belmar
116 A. 273 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1922)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
187 A. 650, 14 N.J. Misc. 825, 1936 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 249, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saxton-ex-rel-saxton-v-ocean-city-nj-1936.