Remington Sewing Machine Co. v. Cole

62 Cal. 311, 1882 Cal. LEXIS 739
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 12, 1882
DocketNo. 7,140
StatusPublished
Cited by26 cases

This text of 62 Cal. 311 (Remington Sewing Machine Co. v. Cole) 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
Remington Sewing Machine Co. v. Cole, 62 Cal. 311, 1882 Cal. LEXIS 739 (Cal. 1882).

Opinions

Ross, J.:

If the complaint counted alone on the bond executed by Joseph H. and George N. Cole, there was no cause of action stated against Jewell or Showers, and they were improperly made parties. In that view, the Coles were entitled to a change of the place of trial, and their motion in that behalf made in 1877, and denied August 30,1878, ought to have been granted, notwithstanding Jewell and Showers - then remained parties of record. From the order made refusing a change of venue the parties aggrieved were entitled to appeal, and that was their remedy. If, on the other hand, the complaint contained a cause of action against Jewell and Showers, the order made August 30, 1878, was rightly made, for they did not join in the motion for a change of the place of trial, but on the contrary,-fileda demurrer, without objection,on that ground. If there was a cause of action stated against them, they had as much right to have it tried in the City and County of San Francisco, where the action was commenced, as their co-defendants had to have it tried in the county of their residence. In either event, we do not perceive how the subsequent dismissal of the action as against Jewell and Showers could operate to confer on the other defendants the right contended for by them. That right is to he determined by the condition of things existing at the time the parties claiming it first appeared in the action.

Order affirmed.

[319]*319McKinstry and McKee, JJ., and Morrison, C. J., concurred.

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

Related

Boucher v. Steffes
Montana Supreme Court, 1972
County of Riverside v. Superior Court
447 P.2d 626 (California Supreme Court, 1968)
Johnson v. Clark
311 P.2d 772 (Montana Supreme Court, 1957)
Wiley v. Long
306 P.2d 1063 (California Court of Appeal, 1957)
Yellow Manufacturing Acceptance Corp. v. Stoddard
208 P.2d 1040 (California Court of Appeal, 1949)
Lyons v. Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co.
127 P.2d 924 (California Supreme Court, 1942)
Connell v. Bowes
122 P.2d 71 (California Court of Appeal, 1942)
Balbás Peña v. Luce & Co., S. en C.
47 P.R. 890 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1935)
Gunnoe v. West Virginia Poultry Co-Operative Ass'n
174 S.E. 691 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1934)
Story v. Christin
30 P.2d 1016 (California Court of Appeal, 1934)
Jester v. Kohler & Chase
10 P.2d 794 (California Court of Appeal, 1932)
Big Springs Land & Livestock Co. v. Beck
263 P. 477 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1928)
Ferguson v. Koerber
230 P. 476 (California Court of Appeal, 1924)
Prendergast v. Mitchell-Silliman Co.
224 P. 243 (California Court of Appeal, 1924)
McClung v. Watt
211 P. 17 (California Supreme Court, 1922)
Garrett v. Garrett
172 P. 587 (California Supreme Court, 1918)
Aisbett v. Paradise Mountain Mining & Milling Co.
131 P. 330 (California Court of Appeal, 1913)
Bartley v. Fraser
117 P. 683 (California Court of Appeal, 1911)
Cochrane v. McDonald
4 Coffey 533 (California Superior Court, San Francisco County, 1894)
Elliot v. Whitmore
37 P. 461 (Utah Supreme Court, 1894)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
62 Cal. 311, 1882 Cal. LEXIS 739, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/remington-sewing-machine-co-v-cole-cal-1882.