Case Name: William Pease vs. Hiram S. Blossom and Lee T. Rowley
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1845-09
Citations: 1 How. Pr. 222
Docket Number: 
Parties: William Pease vs. Hiram S. Blossom and Lee T. Rowley.
Judges: 
Reporter: Howard's Practice Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 222–223

Head Matter:
William Pease vs. Hiram S. Blossom and Lee T. Rowley.
The venue will he changed to the county where it appears the cause of action arose and the witnesses are required, although the opposite party may swear to a greater num-' her of witnesses to retain the venue.
Motion by defendants to change the venue.—This was a motion by defendants to change the venue from the city and county of New York to the county of Washington, on eleven witnesses. The action was brought on a promissory note, and the cause of action arose in Washington county. The defendants alleged that there was no consideration for part of the amount of the note, and gave the facts and circumstances upon which they should rely to prove a failure of consideration, and for ' which they should want the witnesses. On the part of the plaintiff it appeared that one John Abbott, of the city of New York, was the real plaintiff in the cause; that Pease was his agent and took the note in his own name, but it was the property of Abbott; that Pease had informed him, Abbott, that the facts and circumstances mentioned by defendants as having made a part of the consideration of the note, did not enter into the consideration, and formed no part thereof; that issue was joined, and the cause noticed for trial at the New York September circuit; and if the venue should be changed, there would be no opportunity to try it before June next. Plaintiff Abbott swore to fourteen witnesses residing in New York and Kings counties, as material for him on the trial, &c.
O. F. Thompson, Defts Counsel. J. W. & O. F. Thompson, Defts Attys.
R. H. Shannon, Plffs Counsel. R. H. Shannon, Plffs Atty.

Opinion:
Beardsley, Justice.
Thought the motion should be granted. The cause of action arose in Washington county, and the defendants allege a failure of part of the consideration of the note, and state that their witnesses will be necessary to prove that. I am unable to see the materiality of the witnesses on the part of the plaintiff, residing in New York and Kings; the note was given in Washington county and it appears that the proof required, will be in Washington county.
Motion granted, and cause referred.