Prader v. Merchant

California Supreme Court

Prader v. Merchant

1 Cal. Unrep. 138

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJune 6, 1864

DocketNo. 3486

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Cal. Unrep. 138 (Prader v. Merchant) 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

Prader v. Merchant, 1 Cal. Unrep. 138 (Cal. 1864).

Pincite

Opinion

SHAFTER, J.

This is an appeal from an order refusing to change the place of trial. The change was moved for by the defendants, and on the ground that they were residents of the county of Sonoma, to which county they sought to have the case transferred from Sacramento county, where the action was brought.

The plaintiff resisted the motion on the ground that the convenience of witnesses required that the case should be tried in the county of Sacramento.

On inspecting the affidavits used on the hearing of the motion in the district court, we are satisfied that there was no [139]*139abuse of discretion on the part of the court in denying the motion: Sloan v. Smith, 3 Cal. 410; People v. Fisher, 6 Cal. 154; Loehr v. Latham, 15 Cal. 418.

The order is affirmed.

We concur: Sanderson, C. J.; Sawyer, J.; Currey, J.; Rhodes, J.

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

SHAFTER, J.

This is an appeal from an order refusing to change the place of trial. The change was moved for by the defendants, and on the ground that they were residents of the county of Sonoma, to which county they sought to have the case transferred from Sacramento county, where the action was brought.

The plaintiff resisted the motion on the ground that the convenience of witnesses required that the case should be tried in the county of Sacramento.

On inspecting the affidavits used on the hearing of the motion in the district court, we are satisfied that there was no [139]*139abuse of discretion on the part of the court in denying the motion: Sloan v. Smith, 3 Cal. 410; People v. Fisher, 6 Cal. 154; Loehr v. Latham, 15 Cal. 418.

The order is affirmed.

We concur: Sanderson, C. J.; Sawyer, J.; Currey, J.; Rhodes, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Cal. Unrep. 138, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/prader-v-merchant-cal-1864.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack