General
Harriet A. Haines, Appellant, v. Mary Reynolds, Otherwise Mary Reynolds Ireland, Respondent
95 A.D. 275·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·1904·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
Harriet A. Haines, Appellant, v. Mary Reynolds, Otherwise Mary Reynolds Ireland, Respondent.
Change of venue after a trial had — when it will be denied became of laches.
A motion to change the venue of an action must ordinarily be made within a reasonable time after issue is joined, and in order to justify the granting of such a motion, after the action has been tried, exceptional reasons must appear.
When such a motion, made after a trial of the action and over three years after the joinder of issue therein, should be denied, considered.
Appeal by the plaintiff, Harriet A. Haines, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the. county of New York on the 11th day of May, 1904, granting the defendant’s motion to change the place of trial of the action from the county of New York to the county of Saratoga.
Albert I. Sire, for the appellant.
Chandler A. Oakes, for .the respondent.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam:]
Per Curiam:
It appears that issue was joined December 20, 1901, and that the ease was noticed for trial in January, 1902, and was tried in April,. 1901, the trial resulting in a disagreement of' the jury. Upon the ground, therefore, of delay and laches in making the application, the defendant’s motion, for a change of venue should have been •denied. . ■
In order to justify the granting of such a motion, after .trial actually had, exceptional reasons should appear. The general rule is that such an application must be made within a reasonable time after issue joined. (Hoffman v. Sparling, 12 Hun, 83 ; Quinn v. Van Pelt, Id. 633.)
Upon the ground, therefore, of laches and delay ¡in making the application, and a failure to show exceptional facts to take the case out of the application of the general rule, we think the motion should have been denied.
The order accordingly is reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion denied.
Present — O’Brien, Ingraham,. McLaughlin, Hatch ..and Laughlin, JJ. ' .
Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied.