Cincinnati, H. & D. R. Co. v. Ives
New York Supreme Court
At chambers. On motion for change of venue. Action by the Cincinnati, Hamilton & Dayton Railroad Company against Henry S. Ives and George H. Stayner for a misappropriation of plaintiff’s funds. Code Civil Proc. H. Y. § 984, requires actions, excepting those mentioned in the preceding sections, to be tried in the county in which one of the parties resided at the commencement thereof.
1Opinion of the CourtO’Brien, J.
It is conceded upon this application that if the defendant Henry S. Ives was not at the time of the commencement of this action a resident of the city of Hew York, within the meaning of section 984 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that the place of trial must be changed to Kings county. The question to be determined, therefore, is what is meant by the term “residence, ” as used in this section. It must be noted that a distinction is taken by text writers and the authorities between actual and legal residence; the latter being generally equivalent to a domicile. A legal residence or domicile is…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Bell v. . PierceNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Morgan v. NunesMississippi Supreme Court · 1877
3Cited by7 opinions
- Hislop v. TaaffeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1910
- General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. BarnettCity of New York Municipal Court · 1931
- Kleinrock v. Nantex Manufacturing Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1922
- Washington v. ThomasAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1905
- In re RooneyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1916
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.