Sánchez v. Atlas Commercial Co.

27 P.R. 522
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Sánchez v. Atlas Commercial Co.. Read the opinion of the Court — 27 P.R. Dec. 61
Supreme Court of Puerto Rico·Decided June 27, 1919·No. No. 2032·Published

Opinion

Mr. Justice Wolf

delivered the opinion of the court.

Where a complainant bases his motion for a change of venue on the convenience of witnesses he must put the court in possession of such facts as will show that the interest of [523]*523justice requires such, a change. It is generally not sufficient merely to repeat in the affidavit for a change the averments of the complaint.

Where the affidavits of the defendant are positive and recite that the facts of the accident are best known to witnesses residing in the place where the suit was brought, the proponent of the motion, the complainant, has not overcome the right of the defendant to be tried in the district where he lives and where the'suit was brought.

In cases of conflicting affidavits the court of appeal will not generally disturb the discretion of the court below. Pascoe v. Baker, 158 Cal. 232.

The fact that the complainant and his witnesses are extremely poor would only be a circumstance to be taken in consideration by the trier, but neither by itself nor with the other facts of the case is a change of venue justified.

The order appealed from must be

Affirmed.

Chief Justice Hernández and Justices del Toro, Aldrey and Hutchison concurred.

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

Sánchez v. Atlas Commercial Co., 27 P.R. 522 (prsupreme 1919).

27 P.R. 522 (Sánchez v. Atlas Commercial Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Pascoe v. Baker
110 P. 815 (California Supreme Court, 1910)