History
  • No items yet
midpage
Simanton v. Moore
65 N.J.L. 530
N.J.
1900
Check Treatment

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Van Syckel; J.

This is a motion to change venue in a transitory action. The plaintiff has laid the venue in Mercer county, where he resides.

The application of the defendant is to change the venue to the county of Warren, where he resides, and where, it is alleged, most of the witnesses reside.

The plaintiff has a right to lay the venue in Mercer county, subject to a change in the discretion of the court. Bell v. Morris Canal Co., 3 Gr. 63; Gen. Stat. (Practice act), § 230.

The court will not change the venue on the ground of inconvenience, upon any nice balancing of circumstances of mere accommodation to the parties; over these, the legal right of the plaintiff must prevail. Demarest v. Hurd, 17 Vroom 471.

The facility with which witnesses can reach the county seat of Mercer county by railroad leads the court to refuse the application of the' defendant.

The motion is denied, with costs.

Case Details

Case Name: Simanton v. Moore
Court Name: Supreme Court of New Jersey
Date Published: Nov 12, 1900
Citation: 65 N.J.L. 530
Court Abbreviation: N.J.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.