Corp. of New York v. Dawson
New York Supreme Court
This was an action of assumpsit, for the use and occupation of certain premises at Brooklyn, in King’s county. The venue was laid in New York, and the defendants moved to change it to Kings. 1. Because, from the declaration, it appeared that the cause of action arose in that county ; and the action, in its nature, is local. 2. Because a fair and impartial trial cannot be had in New York.
1Per curiam
This action is founded on the privity of contract, and is not local in its nature. It was, therefore,
not indispensable to lay the venue in Kings. Actions founded on the privity of estate are local, as in debt by the as-, signee or devisee of the lessor, against the lessee, or by the lessor against the assignee of a lease, or in covenant *by the grantee of the reversion, against the assignee of a lease. (1 Wils. 165. 6 Mod. 194. 1 Salk. 80.) In this case, the action is founded on the privity of contract only, either expressed or implied. It follows that the venue is not necessarily controlled…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Henwood v. CheesemanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1817
- Silberfeld v. Swiss Bank Corp.New York Supreme Court · 1944
- Kiersted v. Orange & Alexandria RailroadNew York Supreme Court · 1874