Case ID: ny-st-rep_56/html/0104-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Van Brunt, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Julius Imgard et al., Resp’ts. v. Walter B. Duffy, App’lt.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, First Department,
    
    
      Filed November 17, 1893.)
    
    Venue—Convenience on witnesses.
    Upon an application to change the venue for the convenience of witnesses, the affidavit must show, not only what the applicant expects to prove by the witnesses named, but also the ground of such expectation.
    Appeal by defendant from an order denying his motion for a change of the place of trial from the county of New York to the county of Monroe.
    
      Bacon, Briggs, Beckley & Bissell {M. H. Briggs, of counsel), for app’lt; Welch & Daniels, for resp’t.
   Van Brunt, P. J.

The opinion of the court in the case of Turfjell v. Witherbee, 70 Hun, 401; 54 St. Rep., 96, seems to be entirely applicable to the case at bar. The defendant swears tO' his expectations, and that is all. Within the principles laid down in the case cited, this is not sufficient to justify the court in' granting the motion to change the venue. The party should state at least upon what his expectations are founded, so that the court, may say that there is some ground for the hopes expressed. The order should, therefore, be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, with. leave to the defendant, upon payment of the costs of this appeal and the costs of the motion in the court below, to renew the application to change the venue upon new. papers.