Hyperlawhypertext legal database Speare v. Troy Laundry Machinery Co. 44 A.D. 390

← Cases

Speare v. Troy Laundry Machinery Co.

44 A.D. 390 Court N.Y. App. Div. English

Delivered by Van Brunt, P. J.:

Contents

Majority

p. 390
Lewis R. Speare, Respondent, v. The Troy Laundry Machinery Company, Appellant.

Headnote

Change of venue — the residence of a domestic corporation is determined by its principal office and place of business — when á matter of right.
A domestic corporation, for the purposes of a motion to change the venue of an action in which it is a defendant, must be deemed to be a resident of the city ., in which its principal office and place of business is located..
In the absence of. waiver the change to the county in. which the defendant has its principal office; is a matter of right where the plaintiff is a non-resident.
■ Appeal by the defendant, The Troy Laundry Machinery Company, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county
p. 391
of New York on the 27th day of July, 1899, denying its motioti, to change the place of trial of the action.
Lewis E. Carr, for the appellant.
Charles H. Luscomb, for the respondent.

Under the rule laid down in the case of Rossie Iron Works v. Westbrook ( 59 Hun, 345 ), the residence of the defendant was in the city of Troy, Rensselaer county, State of New York. It is a domestic corporation, and it appears that its' principal office and place of business is in' said city. The plaintiff is a non-resident. Consequently, the defendant, as a matter of right, is entitled to a change of Venue. Some suggestions have been made that for certain reasons the trial should not take place in the city of Troy, and the case of Duche v. Buffalo Grape Sugar Company ( 63 How. Pr. 516 ) is cited as authority that the court will consider whether a change is in the interests of justice. Upon an examina* tion of that case it will be seen that there the right arising from residence to a change of venue had been waived by the defendant, and that, consequently, the motion was addressed to the discretion of the court.

The order appealed from should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, with ten dollars costs.

Barrett, Rumsey, Patterson and O’Brien, JJ., concurred".

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs.

Cases cited