Vermont Central Rail Road v. Northern Rail Road
New York Supreme Court
The plaintiff is a foreign corporation having no residence in the state. The defendant’s road is located in the counties of St. Lawrence, Franklin and Clinton. The venue in this action is laid by the complaint in the county of Oneida, where it is conceded the defendant has no legal residence. Before the time for answering expired the defendant’s attorney demanded in writing, under section 126 of the Code, that the trial be had in the county of St. Lawrence.
Read the full summary
The plaintiff is a foreign corporation having no residence in the state. The defendant’s road is located in the counties of St. Lawrence, Franklin and Clinton. The venue in this action is laid by the complaint in the county of Oneida, where it is conceded the defendant has no legal residence. Before the time for answering expired the defendant’s attorney demanded in writing, under section 126 of the Code, that the trial be had in the county of St. Lawrence. That was disregarded, and this motion is made to change the venue to the county of Franklin, as to which no demand has been made.
1Opinion of the CourtHubbard, Justice
This action is transitory, and the venue must be governed by the residence of the parties, or some of them, *107under section 125 of the Code. The county of Oneida being improperly designated as the place of trial in the complaint, the venue must be changed, upon the proper application, provided the defendant has any legal residence in any county within the state. But whether a rail road corporation can be said to acquire any such residence, or whether if it can the county of Franklin is the locality because the principal office or place of business of the defendant,is at Malone, I find it…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Anderson v. Arpin Hardwood Lumber Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1907
- Phillips v. TietjenAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1905
- Elam v. GriffinNevada Supreme Court · 1887