Sherman v. Adirondack Railway Co.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Action by George C. Sherman against the Adirondack Railway Company and others. The nature of the action, and the disposition made of prior motions relating to changing place of trial, appear in the reported case of Sherman v. Railway Co., 92 Hun, 39, 36 N. Y. Supp. 692. In the order granting motion to change the place of trial from Jefferson county to Essex county, it appears that, at the time the motion was heard at special term, the following concession was made by the…
Read the full summary
Action by George C. Sherman against the Adirondack Railway Company and others. The nature of the action, and the disposition made of prior motions relating to changing place of trial, appear in the reported case of Sherman v. Railway Co., 92 Hun, 39, 36 N. Y. Supp. 692. In the order granting motion to change the place of trial from Jefferson county to Essex county, it appears that, at the time the motion was heard at special term, the following concession was made by the attorneys for the respective parties: ,That the respective answers of the moving parties were served on the plaintiff’s…
1Opinion of the CourtHardin, P. J.
We think the special term properly followed the doctrine laid down by the general term in Sherman v. Railway Co., 92 Hun, 39, 36 N. Y. Supp. 692. See Code Civ. Proc. §§ 982—984, 986, 987: Gorman v. Iron Co., 32 Hun, 71; Home v. City of Buffalo, 49 Hun, 76, 1 N. Y. Supp. 801; Thompson v. Heidenrich, 66 How. Prac. 391; McConihe v. Palmer, 76 Hun, 116, 27 N. Y. Supp. 832. We think the orders should be sustained. Each order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur.
2Cases cited4 opinions
- McConihe v. PalmerNew York Supreme Court · 1894
- Horne v. City of BuffaloNew York Supreme Court · 1888
- Sherman v. Adirondack Railway Co.New York Supreme Court · 1895
- Thompson v. HeidenrichNew York Supreme Court · 1883