Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

12 A.D. 602

Fisher v. Ogden

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · decided 1897-07-01

Appeal by the defendant, Levi Ogden, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Washington Trial Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Washington on the 4th da.y of December, 1896, denying his motion to strike the action from the calendar of the Trial Term of the Supreme Court in Washington county. This action was commenced by the service of a summons without complaint; the summons stated that the trial was desired in Washington county.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently November 1928

1 state decisions

Relies on Ciancimino's Towing & Transportation Co. v. Ciancimino · Albert v. . Back

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1897-07-01

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Herrick, J.

¶1It seems to me that, within the principle of the cases of Rector v. Ridgwood Ice Co. (38 Hun, 293; affd., sub. nom. Rector v. Ridgewood Ice Co., 101 N. Y. 656), of McCosker v. Smith (20 Civ. Proc. Rep. 324; affd., 133 N. Y. 672) and of Faherty v. S. S. T. Boat-Line (43 Hun, 432), the place designated in the complaint as the-place of trial is controlling, and that, therefore, the motion to strike it from the calendar should have been granted.

¶2It was insisted upon the argument of this appeal that the change here had been inadvertently made, but we must decide.' upon the record before us, however meagre that may be.

¶3All that we have before us is the summons, notice of retainer,., the complaint and answer, the order denying the motion, the memorandum of the justice of his reasons for such denial and the notice-of appeal.

¶4The order appealed from recites only the reading of the summons,, notice of retainer, complaint and answer, which contain nothing- to-show but that the change was deliberately and intentionally made by the plaintiff and assented to by the defendants. Service of the answer, entitled as above set forth, should have called the attention of the plaintiff’s-attorney to the change that had been made, if it was unwittingly made on his part.'

¶5Of course, the mere inadvertence of an attorney in naming a different place of trial in the complaint from that named in the-' summons, should not be held to effect a change of the place of" trial desired by .him, but if he does not desire such change to result in changing the place of trial, he should move promptly to' correct his mistake, and not allow his adversary to act upon the assumption that the place of trial desired by him is as designated in the complaint.

¶6*604Upon the record, as it appears here, the venue of the action was in Warren county, and the case had no place on the calendar of the Trial Term in Washington county, and should have been stricken therefrom.

¶7The oiider should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, without costs.

¶8All concurred.

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

/12/ad/602 · .json · Public domain