Harrower v. Betts
New York Supreme Court
Assumpsit. A motion was made in behalf of the defendant, on the usual affidavit, to change the venue from Steuben to Chenango : but being opposed by an affidavit of the plaintiff, in the usual form, showing that he had a greater number of witnesses residing in Stéuben, than the defendant’s affidavit showed on his part, who resided in Chenango ; in order to procure a change of the venue, notwithstanding the balance of witnesses was against him, the counsel for the defendant…
Read the full summary
Assumpsit. A motion was made in behalf of the defendant, on the usual affidavit, to change the venue from Steuben to Chenango : but being opposed by an affidavit of the plaintiff, in the usual form, showing that he had a greater number of witnesses residing in Stéuben, than the defendant’s affidavit showed on his part, who resided in Chenango ; in order to procure a change of the venue, notwithstanding the balance of witnesses was against him, the counsel for the defendant produced and offered to the counsel for the plaintiff a stipulation in writing, signed by the defendant’s attorney, “ to…
1Opinion of the Court
Curia.
It seems that the plaintiff would be allowed to retain the venue, on such a stipulation, though the defendant have the greater number of witnesses in the county to which he moves to change it. (Worthy v. Gilbert, 4 John. Rep. 492.) But the defendant has no right to change the venue upon stipulating to pay the expense of the plaintiff’s witnesses.
Motion denied.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Worthy v. GilbertNew York Supreme Court · 1809