Hannah v. Canty
California Court of Appeal
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
Appeal from an order of the superior court of Tulare County denying the defendants’ motion for a change of the place of trial to Alameda County, which is the place of their residence. The motion was denied on the ground that the plaintiff was entitled to a trial in the county of Tulare, where the lands described in the. complaint are situated.
The suit was brought upon a written contract, set out in the complaint, signed by the defendant D. J. Canty, relating to lands therein described, which had been purchased and the-title conveyed to Canty under a prior agreement, upon the terms indicated…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Smith v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- McFarland v. MartinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Booker v. AitkenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
- Green v. BrooksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Baker v. Fireman's Fund InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Kaluzok v. BrissonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
- Cohen v. Hellman Commercial Trust & Savings BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
- Hannah v. CantyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
- Banbury v. BrailsfordIdaho Supreme Court · 1945
- Terry v. Rivergarden Farms Co.California Court of Appeal · 1915
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.