From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kubiac v. Clement

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 1, 1898
35 App. Div. 186 (N.Y. App. Div. 1898)

Summary

In Kubiac v. Clement (35 App. Div. 186) it was held that where a case is evenly balanced as to witnesses, the locality in which the cause of action arose is an important element in the determination of an application to change the venue; and it is still more important in a case like this where the witnesses of the moving party out-number those of the other side in the proportion of more than two to one.

Summary of this case from Browne v. Town of Mount Hope

Opinion

December Term, 1898.

Frederick Chormann, for the appellants.

F.R. March, for the respondent.


The affidavits used upon the motion show very clearly that the cause of action originated in Niagara county, and the preponderance of witnesses apparently necessary to be used upon the trial of the issues reside in Niagara county. A motion was made for the convenience of witnesses, and it was not necessary that it should be made within the ten-day rule laid down in section 986 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

In Glor v. Kelly ( 25 App. Div. 631) it was held that in a case evenly balanced as to witnesses, the county in which the cause of action originated was an important circumstance to be taken into account in determining the motion.

The order should be reversed, with ten dollars costs, and the motion granted, with ten dollars costs to abide event.

All concurred.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs to abide the event.


Summaries of

Kubiac v. Clement

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 1, 1898
35 App. Div. 186 (N.Y. App. Div. 1898)

In Kubiac v. Clement (35 App. Div. 186) it was held that where a case is evenly balanced as to witnesses, the locality in which the cause of action arose is an important element in the determination of an application to change the venue; and it is still more important in a case like this where the witnesses of the moving party out-number those of the other side in the proportion of more than two to one.

Summary of this case from Browne v. Town of Mount Hope
Case details for

Kubiac v. Clement

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPH KUBIAC, Respondent, v . FRANK M. CLEMENT and Others, Appellants

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

Date published: Dec 1, 1898

Citations

35 App. Div. 186 (N.Y. App. Div. 1898)
54 N.Y.S. 773

Citing Cases

Weidenfeld v. McClure

were held in the city of New York, where the plaintiff has his place of business, and where the stock…

Sparks v. United Traction Co.

The rule which has governed this court in its consideration of appeals of this nature has been repeatedly…