Pittman v. Carstenbrook
California Court of Appeal
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Sacramento County changing the place of trial of an action. C. N. Post, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtBurnett, J.
The appeal is from an order granting the motion of the defendants other than the Southern Pacific Company for a change of place of trial" from the county of Sacramento, in which the action was brought, to the county of Tuba, the residence of two of said defendants.
Appellant contends that the order was erroneous for the following reasons: “1. The defendant, Southern Pacific Company, had appeared in the case, filed a demurrer after having been previously served with summons and complaint, and did not join in the motion to change place of trial. Hence the motion should not have been granted; 2.…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- People v. ShearsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
- Grocers' Fruit Growing Union v. Kern Cty. Land Co.California Supreme Court · 1907
- Fresno National Bank v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Thomas v. Placerville Gold Quartz Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1884
- McKenzie v. BarlingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Lyons v. Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co.California Supreme Court · 1942
- San Jose Hospital v. EthertonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927
- O'Hanion v. Great Northern Railway Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1926
- Lundy v. LettunichCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920
- Gallo v. Boyle Manufacturing Co.California Court of Appeal · 1939
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.