Daniels v. Church

California Supreme Court

Daniels v. Church

30 P. 798, 96 Cal. 13, 1892 Cal. LEXIS 891

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 22, 1892

DocketNo. 14822

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 30 P. 798 (Daniels v. Church) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Daniels v. Church, 30 P. 798, 96 Cal. 13, 1892 Cal. LEXIS 891 (Cal. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

Sharpstein, J.

— This appeal is from an order of the superior court of the county of San Joaquin refusing, overruling, and denying said defendant’s motion and application for a change of the place of trial in said above-entitled action from the county of San Joaquin to the county of Fresno.

If, at the time of the commencement of the action, the defendant resided in the county of Fresno, he was entitled to have the action tried in that county. If not, not. It appears by the record that defendant, in support of his motion, introduced the affidavits of several persons who swore that he resided in Fresno County. The plaintiff, in opposition to the motion, introduced several affidavits in which the affiants swore that defendant resided in Calaveras County. The conflict is apparent, and an order refusing to change the place of trial of an action to the county in which the defendant, claims to reside will not be reversed on appeal if the evidence as to the place of residence of the defendant is [14]*14conflicting. (Hastings v. Keller, 69 Cal. 605; Creditors v. Welch, 55 Cal. 469.)

Order affirmed.

McFarland, J., and De Haven, J., concurred.

Hearing in Bank denied.

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

Sharpstein, J.

— This appeal is from an order of the superior court of the county of San Joaquin refusing, overruling, and denying said defendant’s motion and application for a change of the place of trial in said above-entitled action from the county of San Joaquin to the county of Fresno.

If, at the time of the commencement of the action, the defendant resided in the county of Fresno, he was entitled to have the action tried in that county. If not, not. It appears by the record that defendant, in support of his motion, introduced the affidavits of several persons who swore that he resided in Fresno County. The plaintiff, in opposition to the motion, introduced several affidavits in which the affiants swore that defendant resided in Calaveras County. The conflict is apparent, and an order refusing to change the place of trial of an action to the county in which the defendant, claims to reside will not be reversed on appeal if the evidence as to the place of residence of the defendant is [14]*14conflicting. (Hastings v. Keller, 69 Cal. 605; Creditors v. Welch, 55 Cal. 469.)

Order affirmed.

McFarland, J., and De Haven, J., concurred.

Hearing in Bank denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 P. 798, 96 Cal. 13, 1892 Cal. LEXIS 891, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daniels-v-church-cal-1892.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack