Mercantile Acceptance Corp. v. Willett

California Court of Appeal

Mercantile Acceptance Corp. v. Willett

14 P.2d 121, 125 Cal. App. 778

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedSeptember 14, 1932

DocketDocket No. 8555.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 14 P.2d 121 (Mercantile Acceptance Corp. v. Willett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mercantile Acceptance Corp. v. Willett, 14 P.2d 121, 125 Cal. App. 778 (Cal. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

SPENCE, J.

This is an action upon a promissory note. Defendants appeared and made motions for a change of place of trial to San Luis Obispo County. Said defendants appeal from the order denying said motions.

Appellants contend that the trial court erred in denying said motions for change of place of trial and in our opinion this contention must be sustained. We have carefully reviewed the record and believe that appellants were entitled to an order granting the motions upon the showing made. No counter-affidavits were offered and we are unable to ascertain the theory upon which the motions were denied. Counsel for respondent has filed no brief and failed to appear when the cause was on the calendar for hearing. We can only assume that counsel for respondent is in accord with our conclusion that there is no ground upon which the order of the trial court may be sustained.

The order is reversed with directions to the trial court to grant the motions for change of place of trial to San Luis Obispo County.

Nourse, P. J., and Sturtevant, J., concurred.

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

SPENCE, J.

This is an action upon a promissory note. Defendants appeared and made motions for a change of place of trial to San Luis Obispo County. Said defendants appeal from the order denying said motions.

Appellants contend that the trial court erred in denying said motions for change of place of trial and in our opinion this contention must be sustained. We have carefully reviewed the record and believe that appellants were entitled to an order granting the motions upon the showing made. No counter-affidavits were offered and we are unable to ascertain the theory upon which the motions were denied. Counsel for respondent has filed no brief and failed to appear when the cause was on the calendar for hearing. We can only assume that counsel for respondent is in accord with our conclusion that there is no ground upon which the order of the trial court may be sustained.

The order is reversed with directions to the trial court to grant the motions for change of place of trial to San Luis Obispo County.

Nourse, P. J., and Sturtevant, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 P.2d 121, 125 Cal. App. 778, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mercantile-acceptance-corp-v-willett-calctapp-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack