Freeman v. Thomson
New York Supreme Court
Appeal from special term, Saratoga county. Action of trespass guare clausum by Mary E. Freeman against Lemon Thomson. Defendant’s motion for change of venue was denied, and defendant appeals. Code Civil Proc. FT. Y. § 982, enumerates the actions which shall be tried in the county in which the subject of the action is situated, and, among them, waste and nuisance.
Read the full summary
Appeal from special term, Saratoga county. Action of trespass guare clausum by Mary E. Freeman against Lemon Thomson. Defendant’s motion for change of venue was denied, and defendant appeals. Code Civil Proc. FT. Y. § 982, enumerates the actions which shall be tried in the county in which the subject of the action is situated, and, among them, waste and nuisance. It also provides, every other action shall be tried in such county which shall be for a judgment establishing, determining, defining, forfeiting, annulling, or otherwise affecting an estate, right, title, or interest in real property.
1Opinion of the CourtLearned, P. J.
The question in this case is whether actions of trespass guare clausum are local in respect to the place of trial. This question has been decided in the affirmative in Easton v. Booth, 19 Wkly. Dig. 552, by the Second department of this court. That decision should control us, until it be reversed. The question arises under section 982 of the Code. This is stated by the reviser, in his note, to be substituted for Code Proc. § 123, excepting subdivision 4, transferred to section 983. In section 123, Code Proc., the words “for injuries to real property” are found. Ho indication is given that any…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Litchfield v. International Paper Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1899
- Johnson v. MillardAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1921
- Geidel v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.New York Supreme Court · 1965
- Lamson Consolidated Store Service Co. v. HartNew York Supreme Court · 1889