Anonymous
New York Supreme Court
Motion to change the veiiue. In this case, several objections were taken to the form' of the affidavit on which the motion was founded. It was said, that the affidavit did not state the nature of the action, so that the court might see whether it Was local or transitory.
1Opinion of the CourtCowen, J.
That was held to be unnecessary, so long ago as 1804. (Baker v. Sleight, 2 Caines’ Rep. 46.)
It was then said, the affidavit did not state that the cause of action arose in the county to which the venue was sought to be changed, according to what was required in Franklin v. Underhill, (2 John. R. 374,) and hot elsewhere, as was required in Tillinghast v. King, (6 Cowen, 591.)
*669Cowen J.
These cases have -not been law since the 2 R. S. 330, 2d ed. § 2, sub. 3, in respect to applications for a change of venue in personal actions, with very few exceptions. We are there directed to retain or change…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Anon.New York Supreme Court · 1830
- Onondaga County Bank v. ShepherdNew York Supreme Court · 1837
- Constantine v. DunhamNew York Supreme Court · 1832