Case ID: barb_1/html/0229-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Edmonds, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Same Term.
    
      Before the same Justice.
    
    Hart vs. Oatman.
    The section of the judiciary act which requires the venue to be laid in a county where some of the parties reside, means parties in interest, and not the nominal parties, or parties to the record.
    Motion to change the venue from New-York to Monroe; on the ground, among others, that neither of the parties to this suit are residents of the city of New-York, but that one of them resides in Seneca county and the other in Monroe, and that the suit was commenced after the first Monday of July, 1847.
    The motion was opposed on an affidavit stating that Ernest Fiedler of New-York was the real plaintiff in interest, that the declaration was served on the 16th of August, that a circuit was appointed for the first Monday of October, at which the cause could be tried, and that the plaintiff would lose a trial if the motion should be granted.
    
      W. Watson, for the plaintiff.
    
      G. H. Stryker, for the defendant.
   Edmonds, J.

On the principle established by the court of errors, in Henry v. Bank of Salina, (5 Hill, 523,) the plaintiff in interest in the suit is intended by the statute; rather than the party to the record. And as by granting the motion the plaintiff would lose a trial, it must be denied. 
      
       The section of the judiciary act under which this decision was made was repealed by the 17th section of the statute amending that'Sct, passed Dec. 14, 1847.