Lewis v. S. Pac. Coast R.R.

5 P. 79, 66 Cal. 209, 1884 Cal. LEXIS 731
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 9, 1884
DocketNo. 9,578
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 5 P. 79 (Lewis v. S. Pac. Coast R.R.) 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
Lewis v. S. Pac. Coast R.R., 5 P. 79, 66 Cal. 209, 1884 Cal. LEXIS 731 (Cal. 1884).

Opinion

Ross, J.

Section 16 of article xii. of the present Constitution of the State, reads: “A corporation or association may be sued in the county where the contract is made, or is to be performed, or where the obligation or liability arises, or the breach occurs, or in the county where the principal place of business of such corporation is situated, subject to the power of the court to change the place of trial as in other cases.”

The defendant is a corporation, having its principal place of [210]*210business in the city and county of San Francisco, and was sued by the plaintiff in the county of Santa Clara, to recover damages for injuries alleged to have been inflicted upon him by defendant on the 10th of July, 1883, in the said county of Santa Clara.

Defendant claims the right to have the action tried in the county where it has its principal place of business, and a motion to that end having been denied by the court below, the appeal is from the order of refusal. It is urged that the provisions of the constitution quoted apply exclusively to matters of contract, and have no application to actions of tort. We do not think the language employed admits of such restriction. And that none such was intended by the framers of the instrument, plainly appears from the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention at the time the section in question was adopted. (Yol. 1, pp. 452 -3-)

Nor are we able to see wherein the provision of the State Constitution in question conflicts with the provision of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Order affirmed.

Myrick, J., Sharpstein, J., Morrison, C.J., and McKee. J., concurred.

Thornton, J., concurred in the judgment.

Rehearing denied.

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

Related

Mission Imports, Inc. v. Superior Court
647 P.2d 1075 (California Supreme Court, 1982)
Hale v. Bohannon
241 P.2d 4 (California Supreme Court, 1952)
Bain Peanut Co. of Tex. v. Pinson
282 U.S. 499 (Supreme Court, 1931)
Lakeside Ditch Co. v. Packwood Canal Co.
195 P. 284 (California Court of Appeal, 1920)
Krogh v. Pacific Gateway & Development Co.
104 P. 698 (California Court of Appeal, 1909)
Grocers' Fruit Growing Union v. Kern Cty. Land Co.
89 P. 120 (California Supreme Court, 1907)
Tingley v. Times-Mirror Co.
77 P. 918 (California Supreme Court, 1904)
Miller & Lux v. Kern County Land Co.
66 P. 856 (California Supreme Court, 1901)
Brady v. Times-Mirror Co.
39 P. 209 (California Supreme Court, 1895)
Trezevant v. W. R. Strong Co.
36 P. 395 (California Supreme Court, 1894)
Fresno National Bank v. Superior Court
24 P. 157 (California Supreme Court, 1890)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
5 P. 79, 66 Cal. 209, 1884 Cal. LEXIS 731, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lewis-v-s-pac-coast-rr-cal-1884.