Hanchett v. Finch

47 Cal. 192
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1873
DocketNo. 3,700
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 47 Cal. 192 (Hanchett v. Finch) 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
Hanchett v. Finch, 47 Cal. 192 (Cal. 1873).

Opinion

By the Court:

The action was brought in Santa Clara County, and the defendant then was and yet is a resident of Alameda County. Thé defendant in due form and at the proper time moved to change the place of trial to Alameda County, on the ground that he was a resident of that county. The plaintiff, in opposition to the motion, filed his affidavit to the effect that the ends of justice, and the convenience of witnesses, required that the action should be tried in Santa Clara County. He specifies six witnesses residing in that county, whose testimony, he alleges, will be material. In a counter affidavit the defendant alleges that he has eight material witnesses residing in Alameda County, whose names are given. The Court below denied the motion, and the defendant appeals. Prima facie the defendant had the right to have the action tried in Alameda County. But this right is subject to the power of the Court to retain the cause for trial in Santa Clara County if the ends of justice or the convenience of witnesses require it. The Court below must necessarily to some extent exercise its discretion in such cases, and has a better opportunity than we to determine whether the application is made in good faith, and whether the ends of justice will be best subserved by granting or refusing the motion. The mere preponderance in the number of witnesses on the one side or the other is not necessarily decisive of the application; and unless there is reason to believe that the Court below has abused its discretion or injustice has been done, we are not inclined to interfere. In this case we see no reason to infer that the Court has not exercised its discretion soundly.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Mettler v. Hedley
338 P.2d 489 (California Court of Appeal, 1959)
Stocks v. Stocks
183 P.2d 617 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1947)
Topham v. Huntington
293 P. 678 (California Court of Appeal, 1930)
Sheffield v. Pickwick Stages
214 P. 852 (California Supreme Court, 1923)
Blevins v. Blevins
173 P. 402 (California Supreme Court, 1918)
J. I. Case Threshing Co. v. Copren Bros.
169 P. 443 (California Court of Appeal, 1917)
Bird v. Utica Gold Mining Co.
86 P. 509 (California Court of Appeal, 1906)
Grant v. Bannister
78 P. 653 (California Supreme Court, 1904)
Smail v. Gilruth
66 N.W. 452 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1896)
Stockton Combined Harvester & Agricultural Works v. Houser
37 P. 179 (California Supreme Court, 1894)
Clanton v. Ruffner
20 P. 676 (California Supreme Court, 1889)
Avila v. MeHerin
9 P. 428 (California Supreme Court, 1886)
Cook v. Pendergast
61 Cal. 72 (California Supreme Court, 1882)
Reavis v. Cowell
56 Cal. 588 (California Supreme Court, 1880)
Edwards v. Southern Pacific Railroad
48 Cal. 460 (California Supreme Court, 1874)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
47 Cal. 192, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hanchett-v-finch-cal-1873.