Cassatt v. First Nat. Bank of W. N.Y., N. J.
| Decision Date | 22 January 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 421.,421. |
| Citation | 153 A. 377 |
| Parties | CASSATT et al. v. FIRST NAT. BANK OF WEST NEW YORK, N. J. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Suit by Robert K. Cassatt and others, trading as Cassatt & Company, against the First National Bank of West New York, N. J. On defendant's rule to show cause for a change of venue.
Rule dismissed.
Argued May term, 1930, before CASE, DALY, and DONGES, JJ.
McCarter & English, of Newark (G. W. C. McCarter, of Newark, on the brief), for plaintiffs.
Samuel L. Hirschberg, of West New York, for defendant.
The suit is brought to recover the purchase price of stock alleged to have been purchased by the defendant from the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are a partnership whose principal office is in the city of Philadelphia and one of whom resides in the city of Camden. The defendant is a national banking association with its place of business in West New York, Hudson county, N. J. The suit was instituted in the Supreme Court and the venue laid in Camden county. The rule is to show cause why the venue should not be changed to some other county. The prosecutor contends, first, that a change of venue in the case should be granted as a matter of right; and, second, that if the court should determine that the defendant is not entitled to the change of venue as a matter of right, the discretion of the court should be exercised in favor of the defendant.
Our attention is directed to section 94 of the United States Code, title 12, chapter 2, National Banks (12 USCA § 94), which provides:
The prosecutor imputes such force to that language as that the defendant association being located in Hudson county, the venue in the present suit must be laid in that county, and in support of its contention cites Raiola doing business, etc., American & British Travelers Club v. Los Angeles First National Trust & Savings Bank, 133 Misc. Rep. 630, 233 N. T. S. 301, and Crocker v. Marine National Bank, 101 Mass. 240, 3 Am. Rep. 336.
We are inclined to think that the direct application of the statute is to jurisdiction and that it is not in such potent control of venue as to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mercantile National Bank At Dallas v. Langdeau Republic National Bank of Dallas v. Langdeau, s. 14
...121 S.E. 194 (1924). See also County of Okeechobee v. Florida Nat. Bank, 112 Fla. 309, 150 So. 124 (1933); Cassatt v. First Nat. Bank, 9 N.J.Misc. 222, 153 A. 377 (Sup.Ct.1931); Chaffee v. Glens Falls Nat. Bank & Trust Co., 204 Misc. 181, 123 N.Y.S.2d 635 (Sup.Ct.1953), aff'd, 283 App.Div. ......
-
Mercantile Nat. Bank at Dallas v. Langdeau
...cases or (3) that it is permissive (4) that it was repealed by Section 1348, supra, or (5) as stated by the New Jersey Supreme Court in Cassatt [9 N.J.Misc. 222, 153 A. 'We are inclined to think that the direct application of the statute is to jurisdiction and that it is not in such potent ......
-
Cassatt v. First Nat. Bank of W. N.Y.
...and others against the First National Bank of West New York. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed. See, also, 9 N. J. Misc. 222, 153 A. 377; 9 N. J. Misc. 848, 156 A. G. W. C. McCarter, of Newark, for appellants. Hirschberg & Nashel, of West New York (C. W. Tooke, of New ......
-
Monarch Wine Co. v. Butte
...Kaiser-Frazer Corp., supra, 96 N.Y.S.2d 638, held that section 94 applied only to actions for penalties for usury. Cassatt v. First Nat. Bank, 153 A. 377, 9 N.J.Misc. 222, without discussing the federal cases on the subject and in spite of them, held section 94 applied to jurisdiction and n......