From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fisher v. Ogden

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jan 1, 1897
12 App. Div. 602 (N.Y. App. Div. 1897)

Opinion

January Term, 1897.

James H. Bain, for the appellant.

A.V. Pratt and J.H. Whitman, for the respondent.


It seems to me that, within the principle of the cases of Rector v. Ridgwood Ice Co. (38 Hun, 293; affd., sub. nom. Rector v. Ridgewood Ice Co., 101 N.Y. 656), of McCosker v. Smith (20 Civ. Proc. Rep. 324; affd., 133 N.Y. 672) and of Faherty v. S.S.T. Boat Line (43 Hun, 432), the place designated in the complaint as the place of trial is controlling, and that, therefore, the motion to strike it from the calendar should have been granted.

It was insisted upon the argument of this appeal that the change here had been inadvertently made, but we must decide upon the record before us, however meagre that may be.

All that we have before us is the summons, notice of retainer, the complaint and answer, the order denying the motion, the memorandum of the justice of his reasons for such denial and the notice of appeal.

The order appealed from recites only the reading of the summons, notice of retainer, complaint and answer, which contain nothing to show but that the change was deliberately and intentionally made by the plaintiff and assented to by the defendants. Service of the answer, entitled as above set forth, should have called the attention of the plaintiff's attorney to the change that had been made, if it was unwittingly made on his part.

Of course, the mere inadvertence of an attorney in naming a different place of trial in the complaint from that named in the summons, should not be held to effect a change of the place of trial desired by him, but if he does not desire such change to result in changing the place of trial, he should move promptly to correct his mistake, and not allow his adversary to act upon the assumption that the place of trial desired by him is as designated in the complaint.

Upon the record, as it appears here, the venue of the action was in Warren county, and the case had no place on the calendar of the Trial Term in Washington county, and should have been stricken therefrom.

The order should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, without costs.

All concurred.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted.


Summaries of

Fisher v. Ogden

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jan 1, 1897
12 App. Div. 602 (N.Y. App. Div. 1897)
Case details for

Fisher v. Ogden

Case Details

Full title:FRANK FISHER, Respondent, v . LEVI OGDEN, Appellant, Impleaded with Z.I…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Jan 1, 1897

Citations

12 App. Div. 602 (N.Y. App. Div. 1897)
43 N.Y.S. 111

Citing Cases

Tolhurst v. Howard

The summons in this case specified the county in which the plaintiffs desired the trial as the county of New…

Sievert v. Selvig

The Iowa court held that the summons, in order to constitute due process, must correctly name the court…