Usher v. Usher

California Supreme Court

Usher v. Usher

36 P. 8, 4 Cal. Unrep. 521

California Supreme Court·Decided March 7, 1894·No. No. 18,236·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Respondent brought her action for divorce in the county of Tulare, alleging her residence therein as required by law. The summons- was served upon the defendant in the county of Tuolumne; and he moved for a change of the place of trial to that county, upon the ground that he was a resident of said last-named county at the time the action was commenced. His motion was denied, and this appeal is from the order denying his motion. The motion should have been granted. The affidavit of plaintiff is not sufficient to create a substantial conflict with the affidavit of defendant as to his residence; and upon the authority of Warner v. Warner, 100 Cal. 11, 34 Pac. 523, the judgment is reversed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Respondent brought her action for divorce in the county of Tulare, alleging her residence therein as required by law. The summons- was served upon the defendant in the county of Tuolumne; and he moved for a change of the place of trial to that county, upon the ground that he was a resident of said last-named county at the time the action was commenced. His motion was denied, and this appeal is from the order denying his motion. The motion should have been granted. The affidavit of plaintiff is not sufficient to create a substantial conflict with the affidavit of defendant as to his residence; and upon the authority of Warner v. Warner, 100 Cal. 11, 34 Pac. 523, the judgment is reversed.

Usher v. Usher, 36 P. 8, 4 Cal. Unrep. 521 (Cal. 1894).

Pincite

36 P. 8 (Usher v. Usher) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related