Legal Opinion

Nims v. Merritt

New York Supreme Court

Decided September 15, 1899PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Motion to change place of trial.

1Opinion of the CourtRussell, J.

The sole ground of the motion to change the place of trial from the county of Jefferson to the county of St. Lawrence is that the former county is not the proper county, as the action is to collect upwards of $17,000 by force of a mechanic’s lien upon the property of Merritt & Tappan at Hannawa Falls on the Raquette river in the county of St. Lawrence, and, therefore, it is claimed that this is an action affecting real property which must be tried in the county where the property is situate, under section 982 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

This claim would be undoubtedly correct were the…

2Cited by4 opinions

  1. H. W. Palen's Sons v. Nelson & Caulkins, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1928
  2. In re Stephen Manor Homes, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1951
  3. Palen's Sons v. Nelson & Caulkins, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1927
  4. Nims v. MerrittAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1900

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API