Case Name: Kleinhans v. Whiting et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1890-10-23
Citations: 11 N.Y.S. 619
Docket Number: 
Parties: Kleinhans v. Whiting et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 11
Pages: 619–621

Head Matter:
Kleinhans v. Whiting et al.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Fifth Department.
October 23, 1890.)
Change of Vende.
Defendants manufactured and delivered to plaintiff, in the county of Brie, a boiler to be used on a steam-boat in Monroe county, under an agreement that the boiler should be so constructed as to pass the government inspector’s test. This test was made in Monroe county, and the boiler pronounced defective. Plaintiff sued for damages in Monroe county, where he resided, alleging that the boiler had been improperly constructed. Defendants answered that the defect was caused by the misconduct of plaintiff’s employes in tampering with the boiler after its arrival in Monroe couúty, and before the test was made. Held, that all the matters in issue arose in Monroe county, and that it was error to change the venue from that county to Erie county; the number of witnesses on each side being about equal. Corlett, J., dissenting.
Appeal from special term, Monroe county. -
Action by Frederick Kleinhans against Charles L. Whiting and others for damages suffered from a defective steam-boat boiler manufactured for him by defendants, and which they agreed should be satisfactory in every respect, and should pass the government inspector’s test. The boiler was manufactured and delivered in Erie county. The plaintiff resides in Monroe county, and his steam-boat runs from Charlotte to a summer resort known as “Long Pond,” both in Monroe county. The government inspector’s test, also, was made in Monroe county, and the boiler pronounced defective. Plaintiff then brought this action for damages, alleging that it had been improperly constructed in the first place. Defendants answered, admitting that the boiler failed to pass the test, but alleged that it had been injured and tampered with by plaintiff’s employes after its arrival in Monroe county, and before the test was made. The action was brought in Monroe county. Defendants moved for a change of venue to Erie county, on affidavits showing that all their witnesses, 20 in number, resided in that county. Plaintiff submitted affidavits showing that all his witnesses, also about 20 in number, resided in Monroe county. The motion was granted, and plaintiff appeals.
Argued before Dwight, P. J., and Macomber and Corlett, JJ.
J. & Q. Van Voorhis, for appellant. Truman C. White, for respondents.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Order appealed from reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, for the reason that all the matters in issue arose in Monroe county.