City of Marysville v. N. Bloomfield Gravel Mining Co.

66 Cal. 343
California Supreme Court·Decided January 13, 1885·No. No. 7,988·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

The Court.

This action was brought to abate a nuisance, which it was alleged was causing injury to real property in the county of Yuba, where the action was commenced and is still pending. An action for injuries to real property must be tried in the county in which the subject of the action or some part thereof is situated, subject to the power of the court to change the place of trial as provided in the code. (C. C. P., § 392.)

Being an action “ for injuries to real property,” it is not within the class of cases which “ must be tried in the county in which the defendants, or some of them, reside at the commencement of the action.”

Whether it should be tried in that county was a question to be determined upon facts presented to the court below, and unless the decision was unwarranted by the facts, it ought not to be reversed. We think the decision was justified by the facts.

Order affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

City of Marysville v. N. Bloomfield Gravel Mining Co., 66 Cal. 343 (Cal. 1885).

66 Cal. 343 (City of Marysville v. N. Bloomfield Gravel Mining Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State Ex Rel. Yett v. Peters
203 P.2d 299 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1949)
Cervoni Massari v. West India Oil Co.
43 P.R. 134 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1932)
McClatchy v. Laguna Lands Limited
164 P. 41 (California Court of Appeal, 1917)
Glines v. Matta
19 P.R. 388 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1913)
People v. Selby Smelting and Lead Co.
124 P. 692 (California Supreme Court, 1912)
Crabb v. Young
146 Ill. App. 48 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1908)
Las Animas & San Joaquin Land Co. v. Fatjo
99 P. 393 (California Court of Appeal, 1908)