N.J. Imperial Rd. Co. v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders of Gloucester County

Decision Date03 November 1910
PartiesNEW JERSEY IMPERIAL ROAD CO. v. BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS OF GLOUCESTER COUNTY.
CourtNew Jersey Supreme Court

(Syllabus by the Court.)+++++

Action by the New Jersey Imperial Road Company against the Board of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Gloucester. Rule on application for change of venue discharged.

Argued June term, 1910, before PARKER and BERGEN, JJ.

Carrow & Kraft, for plaintiff.

John Boyd Avis and David O. Watkins, for defendant.

BERGEN, J. The plaintiff, a New Jersey corporation, having its principal office in Hudson county, brought suit against the county of Gloucester for moneys due it for road construction, and laid the venue in Hudson county. A rule to show cause why the venue should not be changed was allowed, which it is now moved be made absolute upon facts stipulated.

There is nothing in the record showing a greater inconvenience to one party than to the other; the stipulation being that it will be necessary for both parties to summon a large number of witnesses, nor is there any claim that an impartial trial cannot be had in the county where the venue is laid, and the only serious question raised by the applicant is that an action against a municipal corporation is local and the venue must be laid in the county sued. There is nothing in our statute which recognizes this distinction. The board of chosen freeholders of any county may by the statute sue or be sued, but are given no rights other than those of an ordinary litigant, and the fact that the defendant is a municipality does not make a cause of action otherwise transitory, a local one for the right to sue and be sued conferred by the statute is not qualified by any provision or regulation requiring the venue to be laid in the defendant county. I have examined the cases cited on defendant's brief, and nearly all that hold an action against a municipality to be a local one are founded upon some statute. In this state counties are created corporations with power to sue, and subject to the liability of being sued, without restriction or limitation, and, if it had been intended that a county could not be brought to trial except within its own boundaries, it would have been a very simple matter for the Legislature to have declared that purpose.

It is also urged that the county books will have to be taken to Hudson county, but this I do not think is a sufficient reason for changing the venue. They are not in such constant use as the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • City of Jackson v. Wallace
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 20 Mayo 1940
    ... ... from the circuit court of Walthall county, HON. J. F. GUYNES, ... Suit by ... 92; New Jersey ... Imperial Road Co. v. Gloucester County, 80 N. J. L. 640, ... ...
  • J. J. Nugent Co. v. Sagner
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court
    • 12 Mayo 1976
    ...of the municipality merely because of defendant's status, if all other factors were equal. See N.J. Imperial Road Co. v. Gloucester Freeholders, 80 N.J.L. 640, 77 A. 1022 (Sup.Ct.1910). More recently, the court in Diodato v. Camden Cty. Park Comm'n, 136 N.J.Super. 324, 246 A.2d 100 (App.Div......
  • Engel v. Gosper
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court
    • 18 Enero 1962
    ...is a municipal corporation or like public body, in the absence of a statute or rule so providing. N.J. Imperial Road Co. v. County of Gloucester, 80 N.J.L. 640, 77 A. 1022 (Sup.Ct.1910), review declined, 82 N.J.L. 535, 81 A. 725 (E. & A. 1911); Hesselbrock v. Burlington County, 111 N.J.L. 1......
  • Brown v. Winter
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • 3 Noviembre 1910
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT