Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Tonkin v. Hankinson

Decided: June 20, 1936.

MILDRED TONKIN, PLAINTIFF,
v.
JOHN H. HANKINSON, MARGARET HANKINSON, ALICE C. FITZGERALD, DAVID C. RUBIN AND WELBILT STOVE COMPANY, INCORPORATED, A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, DEFENDANTS



On rule to show cause why venue should not be changed.

For the rule, Cox & Walburg (William H.D. Cox and T. Harry Rowland, of counsel).

Contra, Collins & Corbin (Edward A. Markley, of counsel).

Before Justices Trenchard, Heher and Perskie.

Trenchard

The opinion of the court was delivered by

TRENCHARD, J. Herein the plaintiff instituted suit in the New Jersey Supreme Court on July 13th, 1935, for personal

injuries sustained on November 29th, 1933, in an automobile accident in the county of Burlington, New Jersey, wherein three automobiles were involved.

Plaintiff alleged that the defendant John H. Hankinson was the owner of one of these cars, which was driven by Margaret Hankinson, both residents of Mercer county. The other defendants reside in the State of New York.

All of the defendants were served with the summons and complaint. The defendants Hankinsons, two months after institution of suit, applied for and were allowed this rule to show cause why the venue should not be changed from Hudson county to Mercer county.

Now, "an action merely transitory [such as this] shall at the discretion of the court be tried in the county in which the cause of action arose, or the plaintiff or defendant reside at the time of instituting such action, or if the defendant be a non-resident, in the county in which process was served upon him." 3 Comp. Stat., p. 4113, P202.

Accordingly the plaintiff had the right to lay the venue in the county of her residence, and 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. Simanton v. Moore, 65 N.J.L. 530.

In the present case we believe that it satisfactorily appears that the plaintiff, at the time of institution of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.