Webster agt. Hopkins. sections where the power of granting amendments is alone derived. This conclusion commends itself to us as the only one which it would be reasonable and safe to adopt; and, in a recent case arising in the 4th district, the justices at general term seem to have arrived at the same result. In the case of Gates agt. Ward, (17 Barb. S. C. R., 424,) the justice, on the return day of the summons, amended the process so as to drop the name of one of the plaintiffs, and the cause was then adjourned. On the adjourned day the plaintiff moved to restore the name which had been dropped, and also to amend the complaint by entitling it in the name of both plaintiffs, and this motion was granted; and the cause was tried, and resulted in a verdict for the plaintiffs. The county court affirmed the judgment, but on appeal the supreme court reversed both judgments, holding that the court had no power, after allowing an amendment by striking out the name of a party, to restore it again when objected to by the defendant. Speaking, in the course of his opinion, on the power of the justice in respect to amendments, Mr. Justice HAND says, "I doubt the power of the court to grant the first amendment. Even this court, before the Code, though a mistake in the name of a party could have been corrected, could not as a general rule, especially after declaration, change the parties." Again, he says, "The rules prescribed by the Code, as to the necessary parties to an action, are applicable to them, so far as consistent with their constitution and duties. But the authority to amend by adding parties, is a different thing. It could not have been intended to give to them the same general power in this respect as is possessed by this court. The system is not adapted to the proper exercise of that power. Indeed, I think § 173 is inapplicable to these courts." In these views I entirely concur; and the result is in this case, that the judgment of the justice, and of the county court, must be reversed. Hubbard & Cutler agt. The National Protection Insurance Co. SUPREME COURT. ARCHIBALD HUBBARD and HORACE CUTLER agt. THE NATIONAL PROTECTION INSURANCE COMPANY. Where the defendants served a demand, in writing, that the trial be had in the proper county, naming it, and before the time for answering expired, the defendants served on the plaintiffs' attorney a copy of an answer, not verified, which was returned by the plaintiffs' attorney, on the ground that it was not verified; and the defendants thereupon moved that the place of trial be changed, and that their answer theretofore served stand as the answer in the action, Held, that as regarded the motion to change the place of trial, it was not necessary to inquire whether the answer was well served, without being verified or not. If the plaintiffs laid the venue in the wrong county, it was their duty, on demand, to have changed it by amendment of their complaint, or otherwise, to the proper county. And the defendants might move thus to change it before issue joined, or at any time thereafter before trial, or before judgment, if no trial was had. And the plaintiffs, in such cases, should be charged with the costs of the motion. And on such a motion the plaintiffs cannot set up the ground of the convenience of witnesses-the defendants have no chance to answer it. Where the convenience of witnesses is the ground of the motion, it should not be made till after issue joined, and after the place of trial has been fixed in the proper county. The residence of a corporation created by the laws of this state, is in the county where its general business is transacted and located. The fact that such a corporation has an office in another county, where some of their business is done, does not change or affect their residence. (See Conroe agt. National Protection Ins. Co., 10 How. Pr. R. 403.) Where the plaintiffs' attorney verified the complaint in this way-" that the action is founded on an instrument for the payment of money only, which instrument was in his possession as attorney for the plaintiffs, neither of whom were residents of Erie county, where the attorney resided, nor was either of them capable of making the affidavit verifying the complaint." Held, that the verification was insufficient, for the reason that the attorney did not set forth "his knowledge, or the ground of his belief," on that subject, which is required by the Code. (See also Stannard agt. Mattice, 7 How Pr. R. 4; and Treadwell agt. Fassett, 10 id. 184.) Erie Special Term, March, 1855. MOTION by defendants to change the place of trial from the county of Erie to the county of Saratoga, on the ground that Hubbard & Cutler agt. The National Protection Insurance Co. "the county designated for that purpose in the complaint is not the proper county." The plaintiffs are non-residents of the state, and the defendants are a corporation located and having their principal place of business at the village of Saratoga Springs, in the county of Saratoga, and the venue in the action is laid in the county of Erie. The summons and complaint were served January 17th, 1855, and the action is upon a fire-policy of insurance, issued by the defendants to the plaintiffs, to recover damages for the loss by fire of the property insured. The complaint is verified by the affidavit of the plaintiffs' attorney, in which affidavit he states, that the matters and things stated in the complaint are true, except as to the matters therein stated on information and belief, and that as to those matters he believes it to be true; that the action is founded on an instrument for the payment of money only, which instrument was in his possession as attorney for the plaintiffs, neither of whom were residents of Erie county, where the attorney resided, nor was either of them capable of making the affidavit verifying the complaint. The above is the substance of the whole affidavit. The time for the defendants to answer the complaint having been extended by an order until after February 17, 1855, they on that day served on the plaintiffs' attorney an answer which was not verified-which answer the plaintiffs' attorney returned, stating in a note accompanying it, that it was so returned for the reason that it was not verified. On the 23d of January, 1855, the defendants' attorney served upon the plaintiffs' attorney a demand, in writing, that the trial of the action be had in the proper county-to wit, in the county of Saratoga. The defendants, in their notice of motion, in addition to the change of the place of trial, ask for an order, that the answer served, stand as the answer in the action. The plaintiffs, by an affidavit read in opposition to the motion, show that the defendants have an office for effecting insurance in the city of Buffalo, county of Erie, at which office Hubbard & Cutler agt. The National Protection Insurance Co losses are frequently adjusted and settled-and that three material witnesses for the plaintiffs reside in Erie county. J. THOMPSON, for motion. BOWEN, Justice. For the purpose of determining the proper place for the venue in actions by or against the defendants herein, their place of residence is in the county of Saratoga. In their affidavit for the motion, it is alleged that they are a corporation, located and doing business at Saratoga Springs, in Saratoga county, and that their charter provides that the village of Saratoga Springs shall be the place where the office of the company shall be located, and the general business of the company shall be carried on. I take it for granted, that the defendants were incorporated under the general act passed April 10, 1849, (Sess. Laws of 1849, p. 441,) as I find no special act incorporating them. The 3d section of the act of 1849 requires companies proposing to incorporate themselves, to file with the secretary of state a declaration, containing a copy of the charter proposed to be adopted by them. The defendants' charter having prescribed where their general business should be done, they were not authorized to change the place; and the affidavit states that they are in fact located and doing business there. That must be considered their place of residence; and the fact that they have an office in the city of Buffalo, where some of their business is done, does not make them residents there. Their residence is where their general business is transacted. (See Conroe agt. National Protection Ins. Co., 10 How. Pr. Rep. 403, and cases cited.) So far as regards the motion to change the place of trial, I do not think it necessary to inquire whether the answer was well served without being verified or not. If the venue is in the wrong county, the plaintiffs were in fault in laying it there; and on the demand being made, they should have changed it to Hubbard & Cutler agt. The National Protection Insurance Co the right county, either by an amendment of the complaint, or by an application to the court for an order changing it. The fact that the defendants are in default for not answering, is no objection to the motion, when made by the defendants; as, by making the motion, they are doing what the plaintiffs themselves should have done. Where the convenience of witnesses is the ground of the motion, it is now usually, and probably must be, made after issue joined; but where the venue is laid in a county not authorized by the Code, and the motion is to change it to the right county, I see no reason why it may not be made before issue joined, or at any time thereafter, before trial or before judgment, if no trial is had. swer. But I think the defendants were not bound to verify their anThe Code (§ 157) requires, when a pleading is verified by any person other than the party, that the party verifying "shall set forth in the affidavit his knowledge, or the grounds of his belief on the subject, and the reasons why it is not made by the party." The affidavit verifying this complaint sets forth the reasons. why it is not made by the party-to wit, that the action is on a written instrument for the payment of money only, which was in the possession of the attorney making the affidavit, and that the plaintiffs were non-residents of the county; but the attorney has not set forth in the affidavit "his knowledge, or the ground of his belief on that subject." This he should have done in order to have complied with the requirements of the Code; and for the failure in that respect the defendants had the right to treat the complaint as one not verified. (Treadwell agt. Fassett, 10 How. Pr. Rep. 184.) The cases of Hunt agt. Meacham, (6 How. Pr. Rep. 400,) and of Mason agt. Brown, (id. 481,) cited by the plaintiffs' counsel, are not authorities to the contrary, as in the former case the question now under consideration did not arise, and in the latter the affidavit verifying the pleading set forth the grounds of the belief. The case of Stannard agt. Mattice, (7 How. Pr. R. 4,) in the place of being an authority to the contrary, sustains the posi |