Hirschfeld v. Sevier

19 P. 819, 77 Cal. 448, 1888 Cal. LEXIS 723
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 8, 1888
DocketNo. 11555
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 19 P. 819 (Hirschfeld v. Sevier) 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
Hirschfeld v. Sevier, 19 P. 819, 77 Cal. 448, 1888 Cal. LEXIS 723 (Cal. 1888).

Opinion

Sharpstein, J.

This is an appeal from an order denying a motion to have the place of trial changed from Humboldt County to San Francisco. The action was commenced in Humboldt County against sixteen defendants, twelve of whom were residents of the city and county of San Francisco, two of New York City, and one of Humboldt County. Four of those residing in San Francisco appeared in the action by filing a demurrer to the complaint, and at the same time demanded that the place of trial be changed from Humboldt to San Francisco. Afterward, and before the denial of the motion to change the place of trial, Sevier, the only defendant [449]*449residing in Humboldt County, appeared by filing a demurrer to the complaint, and at the same time filed a consent in writing that the place of trial be changed as demanded by four of the defendants. It appears by the record that five, and five only, of the defendants appeared in the action. It does not appear that a summons was served on any of the defendants.

Upon the foregoing facts, were the appellants entitled to have the place of trial changed as by them demanded?

This action belongs to the class which must be tried in the county in which the defendants, or some of them, reside at the commencement of the action. (Code Civ. Rroc., sec. 395.) In this case, one of the defendants (Sevier) resided in the county in which the action was commenced, viz., in Humboldt County. Therefore, the action might be tried in that county. And since it might, we cannot disturb the order denying the motion to change the place of trial.

Order affirmed.

Searls, C. J., McFarland, J., and Thornton, J.. concurred.

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

Related

Winterburn v. Sheriff
215 P. 406 (California Court of Appeal, 1923)
Quint v. Dimond
67 P. 1034 (California Supreme Court, 1902)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
19 P. 819, 77 Cal. 448, 1888 Cal. LEXIS 723, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hirschfeld-v-sevier-cal-1888.