Walsh v. Maroney

New York Supreme Court

Walsh v. Maroney

53 Misc. 369, 104 N.Y.S. 758

DecidedMarch 15, 1907

StatusPublished

This text of 53 Misc. 369 (Walsh v. Maroney) 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

Walsh v. Maroney, 53 Misc. 369, 104 N.Y.S. 758 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

Crane, J.

Without passing on those provisions of the Act of 1902 (Laws of 1902, chap. 482), which permit an agent to sue in his name although not the party in interest, I shall hold that the clause reading “ Such action may be brought in a court of record having jurisdiction thereof and the place of trial thereof may be laid in the county where such owner, dealer or shipper resides at the commencement thereof ” means those actions where the owner, dealer or shipper is a party plaintiff. It does not refer to a- case like this.

The owner of the milk can in this case, it is alleged, resides in Madison county; the plaintiff, the alleged agent, it is stated and conceded by his counsel, resides in Queens county, the defendant in Kings county.

As the action could not be properly brought in Madison county, the defendant could properly move for change of venue in the proper county as he has done and his motion is granted, with ten dollars costs of this motion.

Motion granted, with ten dollars costs.

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

Crane, J.

Without passing on those provisions of the Act of 1902 (Laws of 1902, chap. 482), which permit an agent to sue in his name although not the party in interest, I shall hold that the clause reading “ Such action may be brought in a court of record having jurisdiction thereof and the place of trial thereof may be laid in the county where such owner, dealer or shipper resides at the commencement thereof ” means those actions where the owner, dealer or shipper is a party plaintiff. It does not refer to a- case like this.

The owner of the milk can in this case, it is alleged, resides in Madison county; the plaintiff, the alleged agent, it is stated and conceded by his counsel, resides in Queens county, the defendant in Kings county.

As the action could not be properly brought in Madison county, the defendant could properly move for change of venue in the proper county as he has done and his motion is granted, with ten dollars costs of this motion.

Motion granted, with ten dollars costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 Misc. 369, 104 N.Y.S. 758, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walsh-v-maroney-nysupct-1907.