Williams v. A. Hollander & Son, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Williams v. A. Hollander & Son, Inc.

249 A.D. 784, 292 N.Y.S. 228, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5997

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 28, 1936·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Order granting a preference in the trial of a personal injury action reversed on the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, without costs. Since the plaintiff and the defendants are not residents of Orange county, in which the venue is laid, the plaintiff may not have a preference granted to him. (Caulfield v. Weil, 232 App. Div. 828; Kupfer v. E. A. White Organization, Inc., 230 id. 731; Defina v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, 211 id. 870; Chopak v. Olvany, 235 id. 743.) The defendants, being foreign corporations, are not residents of Orange county even though they possess a certificate authorizing them to do business in .the State. (Remington & Sherman Co. v. Niagara Bank, 54 App. Div. 358.) The rule that a railroad corporation (foreign or domestic) may be sued in any county through which its railroad is operated is confined to railroad corporations. (General Baking Co. v. Daniell, 181 App. Div. 501; Polley v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Co., 138 id. 636; Poland v. United Traction Co., 88 id. 281.) Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Davis and Adel, JJ., concur.

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

Order granting a preference in the trial of a personal injury action reversed on the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, without costs. Since the plaintiff and the defendants are not residents of Orange county, in which the venue is laid, the plaintiff may not have a preference granted to him. (Caulfield v. Weil, 232 App. Div. 828; Kupfer v. E. A. White Organization, Inc., 230 id. 731; Defina v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, 211 id. 870; Chopak v. Olvany, 235 id. 743.) The defendants, being foreign corporations, are not residents of Orange county even though they possess a certificate authorizing them to do business in .the State. (Remington & Sherman Co. v. Niagara Bank, 54 App. Div. 358.) The rule that a railroad corporation (foreign or domestic) may be sued in any county through which its railroad is operated is confined to railroad corporations. (General Baking Co. v. Daniell, 181 App. Div. 501; Polley v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Co., 138 id. 636; Poland v. United Traction Co., 88 id. 281.) Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Davis and Adel, JJ., concur.

Williams v. A. Hollander & Son, Inc., 249 A.D. 784, 292 N.Y.S. 228, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5997 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

249 A.D. 784 (Williams v. A. Hollander & Son, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related