Legal Opinion

Topham v. Huntington

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 17, 1930No. Docket No. 161PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WARMER, J., pro tem.

The appeal herein is from an order denying a motion for change of venue. Plaintiffs T. E. Topham and Jessie A. Topham, husband and wife, brought their action in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Riverside. The defendants D. C. Huntington and Mathilde S. Huntington, husband and wife, were residents of the county of Los Angeles, California, at the time plaintiffs instituted said action. D. C. Huntington, one of the defendants, was not served with summons in said cause and the proceedings herein were and are on behalf of the defendant…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Scott v. StuartCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
  2. Hanchett v. FinchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1873
  3. Blossom v. WallerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1916
  4. Grant v. BannisterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
  5. Tait v. Midway Field Oil Co.California Court of Appeal · 1915

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Plum v. Forgay Lumber Co.California Court of Appeal · 1931
  2. Plum v. NewhartCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API