From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Spaulding v. American Wood Board Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 1, 1896
5 App. Div. 620 (N.Y. App. Div. 1896)

Opinion

May Term, 1896.

Present — Van Brunt, P.J., Williams, Patterson, O'Brien and Ingraham, JJ.


Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbusements. —


If there was power and discretion in the Special Term, then upon the merits we think it was properly exercised in denying the motion. It is insisted, however, that the defendant was entitled as of right to the order changing the place of trial. A fatal objection to this claim appears in the fact that it defaulted in serving its answer, and not having made the motion in time, as prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure (§§ 982, 983, 984, 986), the defendant was not in a position to insist, as a matter of right, that the place of trial should be changed. ( Vole v. Brooklyn Cross-Town R.R. Co., 12 Civ. Proc. Rep. 103; Taylor v. Smith, 11 N.Y. Supp. 39.) We think the order was right and should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.


Summaries of

Spaulding v. American Wood Board Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 1, 1896
5 App. Div. 620 (N.Y. App. Div. 1896)
Case details for

Spaulding v. American Wood Board Company

Case Details

Full title:John F. Spaulding and Others, Respondents, v. American Wood Board Company…

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

Date published: May 1, 1896

Citations

5 App. Div. 620 (N.Y. App. Div. 1896)

Citing Cases

Phillips v. Tietjen

In McConihe v. Palmer (76 Hun, 116), however, it was held that the section was directory only and not…