Welling v. Sweet
1 How. Pr. 156
Opinion
Denied the motion on the ground that no reason was shown by the papers, why all the defendants did not join in the motion. By the practice of this court, a motion to change the venue can only be made by all the defendants, unless a good reason is shown for their not joining in the motion—such as one of them has suffered a default, &c.
Decision.—Motion denied with costs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Welling v. Sweet, 1 How. Pr. 156 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1845).
1 How. Pr. 156 (Welling v. Sweet) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Metropolitan Tobacco Co. v. Shotz
93 Misc. 2d 671 (New York Supreme Court, 1978)
Lyman v. Gramercy Club
28 A.D. 30 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1898)
Lyman v. Gramercy Club & The Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland
1 Liquor Tax Rep. 309 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1898)
Zimmer v. Matteson
15 N.Y.S. 607 (New York Supreme Court, 1891)
O'Neil v. O'Neil
54 Cal. 187 (California Supreme Court, 1880)
Pieper v. Centinela Land Co.
56 Cal. 173 (California Supreme Court, 1880)
Rupp v. Swineford
40 Wis. 28 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1876)