Howell v. Stetefeldt Furnace Co.
California Supreme Court
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Santa Clara County refusing a change of the place of trial. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Foote, C.
The Stetefeldt Furnace Company had in its possession two thousand dollars, which John Howell and James M. Thompson respectively claimed.
John Howell resided in Santa Clara County, the Furnace Company claimed to have its situs in San Francisco, and Thompson resided there.
Howell brought suit in Santa Clara County against the Furnace Company to recover that sum of money. The company made no defense, but filed the necessary affidavit, under section 386, Code of Civil Procedure, gave the required notice to Howell and Thompson, paid the money into court, and obtained an order to be there…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Lyons v. Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co.California Supreme Court · 1942
- German Savings Bank v. Citizens National BankSupreme Court of Iowa · 1897
- Dawson v. DawsonMontana Supreme Court · 1932
- Pearson v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
- Vickerson v. WehrCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.