Case ID: nys_88/html/0589-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HAINES v. REYNOLDS.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
    June 10, 1904.)
    1. Change of Venue—Laches.
    Where trial was not had until two years and two months after issue wan joined and the case noticed for trial, a motion for a change of venue after disagreement of the jury should be denied on the ground of laches.
    Appeal from Special Term, New York County.
    Action by Harriet A. Haines against Mary Reynolds. From an order granting a motion for a change of venue, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
    Argued before HATCH, McLAUGHLIN, O’BRIEN, INGRAHAM, and LAUGHLIN, JJ.
    Albert I. Sire, for appellant.
    Chandler A. Oakes, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

It appears that issue was joined December 30, 1901, and that the case was noticed for trial in January, 1903, and was tried in April, 1904, the trial resulting in a disagreement of the jury. Upon the ground, therefore, of delay and laches in making the application, the defendant’s motion for a change of venue should have been denied.

In order to justify the granting of such a motion after trial actually had, exceptional reasons should appear. The general rule is that such an application must be made within a reasonable time after issue joined. Hoffman v. Sparling, 12 Hun, 83; Quinn v. Van Pelt, Id. 633. Upon - the ground, therefore, of laches and delay in making the application, and a failure to show exceptional facts to take the case out of the application of the general rule, we think the motion should have been denied.,

The order, accordingly, is reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion denied.