Killbourne v. Fairchild
New York Supreme Court
This was a motion to change the venue from New-York to St. Lawrence. The plaintiff out-numbered the defendant in witnesses, wherefore he was entitled tó ask to have the motion denied; but he asked that it be denied, with costs, under these circumstances : the suit was commenced by declaration, served on the defendant on the 23d December, On the 9th January the defendant obtained an order for a bill of particulars, to be delivered on the 9th February, and enlarging the time…
Read the full summary
This was a motion to change the venue from New-York to St. Lawrence. The plaintiff out-numbered the defendant in witnesses, wherefore he was entitled tó ask to have the motion denied; but he asked that it be denied, with costs, under these circumstances : the suit was commenced by declaration, served on the defendant on the 23d December, On the 9th January the defendant obtained an order for a bill of particulars, to be delivered on the 9th February, and enlarging the time .to plead until the 20th February ; which order he served on the 12th January, (the last day to plead.) On the 20th…
1Opinion of the Court
*294 By the Court,
Sutheeland, J.
The object of the defendant is obviously nothing but delay, and the commissioner who granted the orders in this case has either ignorantly or wilfully lent himself to the accomplishment of the defendant’s purposes. No possible apology can be offered for the great extension of the time to plead given by the original order; and after the great delay, no order should have been granted to stay proceedings for this motion. 10 Wendell, 571. The motion for these reasons, is denied, with costs.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Haywood v. ThayerNew York Supreme Court · 1833
3Cited by1 opinion
- Brittan v. PeabodyCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1842