Usher v. Usher

36 P. 8, 4 Cal. Unrep. 521
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 7, 1894
DocketNo. 18,236
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

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

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

Related

Shields v. Shields
139 P.2d 528 (Montana Supreme Court, 1943)
Finnell v. Finnell
81 P.2d 401 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1938)
Duffill v. Bartlett
297 P. 504 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1931)
Hockett v. Hockett
149 N.W. 550 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1914)
Cochrane v. McDonald
4 Coffey 533 (California Superior Court, San Francisco County, 1894)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
36 P. 8, 4 Cal. Unrep. 521, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/usher-v-usher-cal-1894.