
    Johh G. Walsh, Plaintiff, v. Thomas F. Maroney, Defendant.
    (Supreme Court, Kings Special Term,
    March, 1907.)
    Place of trial — Residence or domicile of parties — Agent authorized to sue by Domestic Commerce Law (L. 1902, ch. 482).
    The place of trial of an action brought by an agent residing in Queens county against a defendant residing in Kings county cannot be properly laid in Madison county where the owner resides, pursuant to L. 1902, ch. 482, and the defendant may require the place of trial to be changed to Kings county.
    
      Motion to change venue.
    Martin Byrne, for plaintiff.
    Hamilton Anderson, for defendant.
   Crane, J.

Without passing on those provisions of the Act of 1902 (Laws of 1902, chap. 482), which permit an agent to sue in his name although not the party in interest, I shall hold that the clause reading “ Such action may be brought in a court of record having jurisdiction thereof and the place of trial thereof may be laid in the county where such owner, dealer or shipper resides at the commencement thereof ” means those actions where the owner, dealer or shipper is a party plaintiff. It does not refer to a- case like this.

The owner of the milk can in this case, it is alleged, resides in Madison county; the plaintiff, the alleged agent, it is stated and conceded by his counsel, resides in Queens county, the defendant in Kings county.

As the action could not be properly brought in Madison county, the defendant could properly move for change of venue in the proper county as he has done and his motion is granted, with ten dollars costs of this motion.

Motion granted, with ten dollars costs.  