General

Walter H. Wilson, Appellant, v. New Process Heating Company, Respondent. The Minneapolis Heat Regulator Company, etc., a Party Defendant, Pursuant to Section 271 of the Civil Practice Act

222 A.D. 820·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·1928·NY

Brief incoming

Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.

Opinion

Walter H. Wilson, Appellant, v. New Process Heating Company, Respondent. The Minneapolis Heat Regulator Company, etc., a Party Defendant, Pursuant to Section 271 of the Civil Practice Act. [MAJORITY] Order granting motion for change of venue reversed upon the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs, upon the grounds (1) that the motion was improperly made in the First District (see rule 63, subdivisions 2-6, Rules of Civil Practice) and (2) that the granting of the motion was not a proper exercise of discretion. Lazansky, P. J., Rich, Young, Hagarty and Carswell, JJ., concur.