Pieper v. Centinela Land Co.
California Supreme Court
Appeal from an order denying the defendant’s motion for a change of place of trial, in the Twentieth District Court, County of Santa Clara. Belden J. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Thornton, J.:
This is an appeal from an order denying a motion made to change the place of trial. The motion was made on two grounds: first, the residence of the moving parties; and second, the convenience of witnesses.
An objection is taken by the respondent, that the papers claimed to have been used on the motion in the Court below cannot be looked at on this appeal, because not embodied in a bill of exceptions.
As the statute was at the time the motion was made (in 1879), the bill of exceptions was not necessary to bring up such papers. (§ 951, Code Civ. Proc.) In 1874, this section was…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- O'Neil v. O'NeilCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
- Sailly v. HuttonNew York Supreme Court · 1830
- Welling v. SweetNew York Supreme Court · 1845
3Cited by18 opinions
- Fish v. BensonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- People v. JordanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884
- Herrlich v. McDonaldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Clark v. CraneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
- McKenzie v. BarlingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.