Houck v. Lasher
New York Supreme Court
Motion to change the place of trial. The action is brought to recover the value of certain personal property taken by the defendant, who was a constable of the county of Schenectady, by virtue of an execution against one Simon Houck. The plaintiff claimed the property under a chattel mortgage. The venue in the action is laid in the county of Albany.
Read the full summary
Motion to change the place of trial. The action is brought to recover the value of certain personal property taken by the defendant, who was a constable of the county of Schenectady, by virtue of an execution against one Simon Houck. The plaintiff claimed the property under a chattel mortgage. The venue in the action is laid in the county of Albany. Issue having been joined in the action, the defendant moved to change the venue from the county of Albany to the county of Schenectady, upon the ground that the convenience of witnesses would be promoted by the change, and also upon the ground…
1Opinion of the Court
By the court—Harris, Justice.
At the common law, actions in respect to the place of trial were either local or' transitory. In a local action a mistake in the venue was a fatal error. In a transitory action, the plaintiff was under no restraint in selecting the place of trial. But under the Code this distinction does not exist. Ho action is strictly local in the sense . in which the term is used at the common law, and no action,' except perhaps the actions mentioned in the 125th section of the Code, in which all the parties are non-residents of the state, is strictly transitory. With the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Phillips v. TietjenAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1905
- Elam v. GriffinNevada Supreme Court · 1887
- Benedict v. JohnsonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1893