Majority
Headnote
1. ■Venue—Action in Wrong District—Removal.The plaintiff in this action alleges that it is a foreign corporation, organized under the laws of the state of Ohio, and asks judgment for the price of certain goods sold and delivered to the defendant. The action was brought in the First district municipal court. Upon the return day of the summons the defendant made a motion to have the case transferred to the Third municipal court, stating in his motion that the defendant was a resident of the latter district. No proof of that fact was given, and the motion was denied. The refusal by the court to transfer the action, in the absence of any proof adduced as to the action having been brought in the wrong district, was correct. Consolidation Act, § 1382; Baer v. Kempner, 15 Daly, 110 , 3 N. Y. Supp. 529 ; Werner v. Braunstein, 20 Misc. Rep. 341 , 45 N. Y. Supp. 757 . The defendant also demurred to the complaint on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The court overruled such demurrer, and in that decision it was also right.
An examination of the record, however, discloses more serious questions. The summons in this action was returnable on the 24th day ®f January, 1899. On that day the parties appeared, and the plaintiff then filed a verified complaint. The record then states: “Answer" to
Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.
Cases cited
- Werner v. Braunstein 20 Misc. Rep. 341 p. 760
- Porter v. Cregan 26 Misc. Rep. 417 p. 761
- Armstrong v. Smith 44 Barb. 120 p. 761