Spaulding v. American Wood Board Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Spaulding v. American Wood Board Co.

5 A.D. 620, 39 N.Y.S. 203

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 15, 1896

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 5 A.D. 620 (Spaulding v. American Wood Board Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Spaulding v. American Wood Board Co., 5 A.D. 620, 39 N.Y.S. 203 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

If there was power and discretion in the Special Term, then upon the merits we think it was properly exercised in denying the motion. It is insisted, however, that the defendant was entitled as of right to the order changing the place of trial. A fatal objection to this claim appears in the fact that it defaulted in serving its answer, and not having made the motion in time, as prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure (§§ 982, 983, 984, 986), the defendant was not in a position to insist, as a matter of right, that the place of trial should be changed. (Vale v. Brooklyn Cross-Town R. R. Co., 12 Civ. Proc. Rep. 103; Taylor v. Smith, 11 N. Y. Supp. 39.) We think the order was right and should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Present — Van Brunt, P. J., Williams, Patterson, O’Brien and Ingraham, JJ.

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

Per Curiam:

If there was power and discretion in the Special Term, then upon the merits we think it was properly exercised in denying the motion. It is insisted, however, that the defendant was entitled as of right to the order changing the place of trial. A fatal objection to this claim appears in the fact that it defaulted in serving its answer, and not having made the motion in time, as prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure (§§ 982, 983, 984, 986), the defendant was not in a position to insist, as a matter of right, that the place of trial should be changed. (Vale v. Brooklyn Cross-Town R. R. Co., 12 Civ. Proc. Rep. 103; Taylor v. Smith, 11 N. Y. Supp. 39.) We think the order was right and should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Present — Van Brunt, P. J., Williams, Patterson, O’Brien and Ingraham, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 A.D. 620, 39 N.Y.S. 203, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spaulding-v-american-wood-board-co-nyappdiv-1896.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack