
    Cheney v. Schuyler et al.
    
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.
    
    October 20, 1892.)
    Injunction—Restraining Action at Law.
    Injunction will not lie to restrain the prosecution of an action begun in another county in which plaintiff's predecessors in title intervened and answered, .and to which he was made a party.
    Appeal from special term, New York county.
    Action for injunction by Alfred C. Cheney against Samuel W. Schuyler and others to restrain the prosecution of an action begun in Albany county to reform a policy of insurance. From an order denying the motion, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
    Argued before Van Brunt, P. J., and O’Brien and Lawrence, JJ.
    
      John J. Adams, for appellant. Stedman, Thompson & Andrews, (A. L. Andrews, of counsel,) for respondents.,
   Van Brunt, P. J.

This action seems to have been brought for the "purpose of changing the venue of an action which the plaintiff in that action had .a right to have tried in another jurisdiction; in which action the plaintiff’s predecessor in title had intervened, been made a party, and answered, setting up his rights, and subsequent to which such predecessor had sold all his interest in the subject-matter to the plaintiff herein, who necessarily took his title subject to that which had been done by the owner in respect thereto. We know of no practice which justifies the bringing of an action to change the venue of another action, which has been already brought. The order should be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.  