TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Ellis v. Baker

Sampson Ellis v. Charles Baker

Ellis v. Baker, 62 A.D. 542 (1901)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
July 1, 1901
Judges
Cübiam
Citations
62 A.D. 54271 N.Y.S. 88
Headnotes
Venue—action for false imprisonment where an arrest took place in one county and the imprisonment in another. Where an action for false imprisonment is based upon the fact that the plaintiff was irrested in Saratoga county by the defendant, who was a deputy sheriff of Warren county, and was by such defendant carried to, and imprisoned in, the jail of Warren county, the action may properly be brought in Saratoga county, as a part of the cause of action arose therein.
Summary
Appeal by the plaintiff, Sampson Ellis, from an order'of the Supreme Court, rpade at the Montgomery Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Saratoga on the 28th day of January, 1901, granting the defendant’s motion to change the place of trial of the action from the county of Saratoga to the county of Warren.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Cübiam

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Pee Cübiam :

This is an appeal from an order granting a motion to change the place of trial from Saratoga county to Warren county, on the ground that the latter is the proper county. The action was for false imprisonment. From tlie papers used on the motion there is no *543 doubt that the plaintiff was arrested ■ in Saratoga county by the defendant, who was deputy sheriff of Warren county, and was by him carried therefrom to, and imprisoned in, the jail of Warren county. As part of the cause of action, therefore, arose in Saratoga county, the action was properly brought there (Code Civ. Proc. § 983), and the defendant was not entitled to a change of venue on the ground on which motion was made.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

All concurred.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1926: 11941: 21948: 119262026peak 1941 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Ray Wong v. Earle C. Anthony, Inc.247 P. 894 (Cal. 1926)
  2. Bergin v. Temple111 P.2d 286 (Mont. 1941)
  3. Meihak v. Schreckenghaust297 N.W. 122 (S.D. 1941)
  4. Dedek v. McNary193 Misc. 313 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1948)

Most recent

  1. Dedek v. McNary193 Misc. 313 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1948)
  2. Meihak v. Schreckenghaust297 N.W. 122 (S.D. 1941)
  3. Bergin v. Temple111 P.2d 286 (Mont. 1941)
  4. Ray Wong v. Earle C. Anthony, Inc.247 P. 894 (Cal. 1926)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list