Buell v. Dodge
57 Cal. 645
Opinion
The demand that the trial be had in San Francisco county was made by defendants when they demurred to the original complaint; by which complaint it appeared that the defendant Dodge (a resident of San Francisco) was the only defendant against whom the facts alleged would justify a judgment.
Dodge’s right to a change of the place of trial is to be determined by the then conditions of the case, and could not be taken away by statements in an amended complaint subsequently filed.
Order affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Buell v. Dodge, 57 Cal. 645 (Cal. 1881).
57 Cal. 645 (Buell v. Dodge) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Gutierrez v. Superior Court
243 Cal. App. 2d 710 (California Court of Appeal, 1966)
Apartments, Inc. v. Trott
342 P.2d 32 (California Court of Appeal, 1959)
Johnson v. Clark
311 P.2d 772 (Montana Supreme Court, 1957)
Wiley v. Long
306 P.2d 1063 (California Court of Appeal, 1957)
Sloan v. Court Hotel
164 P.2d 516 (California Court of Appeal, 1945)
Warren v. Ritter
142 P.2d 948 (California Court of Appeal, 1943)
Balbás Peña v. Luce & Co., S. en C.
47 P.R. 890 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1935)
Story v. Christin
30 P.2d 1016 (California Court of Appeal, 1934)
Prendergast v. Mitchell-Silliman Co.
224 P. 243 (California Court of Appeal, 1924)
McClung v. Watt
211 P. 17 (California Supreme Court, 1922)
Garrett v. Jensen
186 P. 156 (California Court of Appeal, 1919)
Donohoe v. Wooster
124 P. 730 (California Supreme Court, 1912)
German Savings Bank v. Citizens National Bank
101 Iowa 530 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1897)
Brady v. Times-Mirror Co.
39 P. 209 (California Supreme Court, 1895)
Wallace v. Owsley
27 P. 790 (Montana Supreme Court, 1891)
Fong v. Sternes
21 P. 381 (California Supreme Court, 1889)