Opinion

Spaulding v. American Wood Board Co.

  • 5 A.D. 620
  • 39 N.Y.S. 203
Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Filed
May 15, 1896
Status
Published
Cited by
1 cases
Authority
More cited than 75.9%

The opinion

Per Curiam:

If there was power and discretion in the Special Term, then upon the merits we think it was properly exercised in denying the motion. It is insisted, however, that the defendant was entitled as of right to the order changing the place of trial. A fatal objection to this claim appears in the fact that it defaulted in serving its answer, and not having made the motion in time, as prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure (§§ 982, 983, 984, 986), the defendant was not in a position to insist, as a matter of right, that the place of trial should be changed. (Vale v. Brooklyn Cross-Town R. R. Co., 12 Civ. Proc. Rep. 103; Taylor v. Smith, 11 N. Y. Supp. 39 .) We think the order was right and should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Present — Van Brunt, P. J., Williams, Patterson, O’Brien and Ingraham, JJ.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.