Case Name: A. L. BUCH, RAYMOND BUCH AND SONDELL COLEMAN, TRADING AS THE BUCH EXPRESS, PLAINTIFF, v. JAMES NEWSOME AND JAMES HUNT, DEFENDANTS
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1943-02-25
Citations: 129 N.J.L. 585
Docket Number: 
Parties: A. L. BUCH, RAYMOND BUCH AND SONDELL COLEMAN, TRADING AS THE BUCH EXPRESS, PLAINTIFF, v. JAMES NEWSOME AND JAMES HUNT, DEFENDANTS.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 129
Pages: 585–586

Head Matter:
A. L. BUCH, RAYMOND BUCH AND SONDELL COLEMAN, TRADING AS THE BUCH EXPRESS, PLAINTIFF, v. JAMES NEWSOME AND JAMES HUNT, DEFENDANTS.
Submitted January 19, 1943
Decided February 25, 1943.
For the plaintiff, Sigmund Auerbach.
For the defendants, Carey & Lane (Harry Lane).

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Bodine, J.
On December 12th, 1932, there was an accident between a truck and an automobile on Eoute 25 between Princeton and Trenton. The defendants reside and were served with process in Mercer County. The venue was laid in Hudson County and the defendants seek to have it changed to Mercer County. The plaintiffs are "A. L. Buch, Raymond Buch and Sondell Coleman trading as The Buch Express, plaintiff." So they must sue. Seely v. Schenck, 2 N. J. L. 71. One could not bring the action. All must join. Autin v. Townsend, 3 Id. 313.
The partnership exists under the laws of Pennsylvania, where some of the partners reside, and an office is there maintained. There is also an office in Jersey City where one of the partners claims a residence. However, there was no registration of the partnership in this state pursuant to N. J. S. A. 56:1-1, et seq. This circumstance requires us to regard the cause of action as vested in the partnership as it exists under the laws of Pennsylvania. Whether or not one of the partners maintains a residence in this state is immaterial. However, the proofs examined suggest that he did not. The cause of action is not his but is a partnership intangible asset with a situs definitely out of this state. The presumption of residence as alleged in the complaint is overcome.
Since the cause of action arose in Mercer County and process was served there under N. J. S. A. 2:27-19, the change of venue must be granted, with costs. Worley v. Scudder, 10 N. J. L. 231.