Jenkins v. California Stage Co.

22 Cal. 537
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1863
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 22 Cal. 537 (Jenkins v. California Stage Co.) 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
Jenkins v. California Stage Co., 22 Cal. 537 (Cal. 1863).

Opinion

Crocker, J. delivered the opinion of the Court—Cope, C. J. and Norton, J. concurring.

This is an appeal from an order refusing to change the place of trial, on motion made by the defendants. The action was brought in Nevada County, and the application was made on the ground that the defendant was a corporation, that its principal place of business was in Yuba County, and that the latter county was, therefore, the “ residence ” of the corporation within the meaning of that word as used in Sec. 20 of the Practice Act. The application was opposed on the ground that the convenience of witnesses required that the action should be tried in Nevada County. The modern decisions very generally concur in giving corporations a local existence, like persons, and hold them to be properly included within the terms citizens, inhabitants, residents, and the like. (Louisville R. R. Co. v. Letson, 2 How., U. S., 497; Angell & Ames on Corporartions, 404-407, 6, 265, 440.) Every corporation has some' locality where its principal office or place of business is established, and it may very properly be said to “ reside ” at such locality, and to be included within that term as used in Sec. 20 of the Practice Act.

When a defendant applies for a change of the place of trial, on the ground that the action was not brought in the county where he resides, the plaintiff has a right to oppose the motion by showing that the “ convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted ” by refusing the change, and such facts should govern and control the Court in determining the question whether the application for the change should be granted or not. (Loehr v. Latham, 15 Cal. 418; Pierson v. McCahill, 22 Id. —.) There was no abuse of the discretion which the law vests in the District Court upon these questions in its action in this case, and the, order is therefore affirmed.

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

Related

State of California v. Superior Court
252 Cal. App. 2d 637 (California Court of Appeal, 1967)
All-Cool Aluminum Awning Co. v. Superior Court
224 Cal. App. 2d 660 (California Court of Appeal, 1964)
Hale v. Bohannon
241 P.2d 4 (California Supreme Court, 1952)
Stocks v. Stocks
183 P.2d 617 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1947)
Bohn v. Better Biscuits, Inc.
78 P.2d 1177 (California Court of Appeal, 1938)
Sheffield v. Pickwick Stages
214 P. 852 (California Supreme Court, 1923)
Carlo v. Bayaney
27 P.R. 278 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1919)
Gallup v. Sacramento & San Joaquin Drainage District
151 P. 1142 (California Supreme Court, 1915)
Fairbanks Steam Shovel Co. v. Wills
212 F. 688 (Seventh Circuit, 1914)
Saríe v. Porto Rican Leaf Tobacco Co.
15 P.R. 190 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1909)
City of Santa Rosa v. Fountain Water Co.
71 P. 1123 (California Supreme Court, 1903)
Crookston v. Centennial Eureka Mining Co.
44 P. 714 (Utah Supreme Court, 1896)
Trezevant v. W. R. Strong Co.
36 P. 395 (California Supreme Court, 1894)
Buck v. City of Eureka
31 P. 845 (California Supreme Court, 1893)
Fresno National Bank v. Superior Court
24 P. 157 (California Supreme Court, 1890)
California Southern Railroad v. Southern Pacific Railroad
4 P. 344 (California Supreme Court, 1884)
Cook v. Pendergast
61 Cal. 72 (California Supreme Court, 1882)
Edwards v. Southern Pacific Railroad
48 Cal. 460 (California Supreme Court, 1874)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
22 Cal. 537, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jenkins-v-california-stage-co-cal-1863.