Case Name: George V. Brower, Rec'r, Pl'ff, v. William A. Huested, Impl'd, App'lt
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1892-02-08
Citations: 44 N.Y. St. Rep. 746
Docket Number: 
Parties: George V. Brower, Rec’r, Pl’ff, v. William A. Huested, Impl’d, App’lt.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 44
Pages: 746–747

Head Matter:
George V. Brower, Rec’r, Pl’ff, v. William A. Huested, Impl’d, App’lt.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
Filed February 8, 1892.)
Venue—Foreclosure—Convenience of witnesses.
The place of trial of an action to declare void three mortgages is properly changed from a county in which none of the property to be affected is situated and where none of the parties reside to a county in which the property covered by two of the mortgages is situated and which will best. subserve this convenience of witnesses.
Appeal from order granting motion to change the place of' trial from Westchester county to the county of Kings.
Action to" set aside three mortgages given by the Ridgewood Ice Company, of which plaintiff is the receiver, and to restrain the defendant mortgagees from foreclosing the same. Two of the mortgages were filed in the office of the register of Kings county, and it did not appear that any of the property covered by the-mortgages was situated in Westchester county. Plaintiff and defendant Huested reside in Brooklyn, where the principal office of" the defendant, the Brooklyn Trust Co., is; defendant Downer resides in Rensselaer, Yoye in Albany and Baucus in Saratoga county.
Henry Daily, Jr., for app’lt; Hdgar T. Brackett and Joseph A. Shoudy, for Joseph D. Baucus, resp’t.

Opinion:
Barnard, P. J.
The Ridgewood Ice Company is a' domestic-corporation. Its principal place of business was in Brooklyn-until the receiver was appointed. The object of the action brought ' by the receiver is to set aside three mortgages given by the corporation ; none of the parties reside in Westchester county. Two-of the mortgages sought to be set aside affect real estate situate-in Kings county. There is no property, real or personal, in Westchester county to be affected by the judgment. The place of.' trial belongs of right in Kings county. Code, § 982.
The principal contesting defendants except the defendant. Downer and the attorneyrgeneral, as well as the plaintiff, consented to the change of place of trial. The papers show that Kings county is the best place to subserve the convenience of witnesses. It seems that no one lives in Westchester county who will be convenienced by the place of trial being returned there.
The order should, therefore, be affirmed, with costs and disbursements.
Dykman, J., concurs; Peatt, J., not sitting.