From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rothlein v. Hewitt

Supreme Court, Kings Special Term
Dec 1, 1899
29 Misc. 664 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1899)

Opinion

December, 1899.

Parsons, Shepard Ogden for motion.

Abraham B. Schleimer opposed.


This action is not included among those which must be tried in the county where the subject of the action is situated, unless under the general provision that every action "to recover or procure a judgment * * * * establishing, determining, defining, forfeiting, annulling or otherwise affecting an estate, right, title, lien or other interest in real property", must be tried in the county where such real property is situated (Code Civ. Pro., § 982). The judgment asked for here affects the "right" of the defendant to enter upon her real property. Besides, it seems that every action of trespass to real property is local to the county where such property is situated. The common-law action of trespass quaere clausum fregit was frequently resorted to to try title, and was therefore local. Now even a suit in equity to restrain such trespass is said to be local (Litchfield v. International Paper Co., 41 A.D. 446).

Motion granted.


Summaries of

Rothlein v. Hewitt

Supreme Court, Kings Special Term
Dec 1, 1899
29 Misc. 664 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1899)
Case details for

Rothlein v. Hewitt

Case Details

Full title:ADOLPH ROTHLEIN, Plaintiff, v . SARA S. HEWITT, Defendant

Court:Supreme Court, Kings Special Term

Date published: Dec 1, 1899

Citations

29 Misc. 664 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1899)
61 N.Y.S. 97

Citing Cases

Fontana v. Town of Hempstead

It has repeatedly been held that an action in trespass must be held in the county where the trespass was…