Quinn v. Nevills
California Court of Appeal
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, denying defendant’s motion to change the place of trial. J. M. Seawell, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtHall, J.
This is an appeal from an order denying defendant’s motion for a change of the place of trial of the action from the city and county of San Francisco to the county of Tuolumne. The demand and motion were upon the ground that defendant resided in Tuolumne county at the time of the commencement of the action.
In opposition to the motion plaintiff filed and read his affidavit, which set forth facts tending strongly to support the view that defendant resided, and had resided, in the city and county of San Francisco continuously for several years immediately preceding the commencement of the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Smith v. CroomSupreme Court of Florida · 1857
- Easterly v. GoodwinSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1868
- Town of Enfield v. Town of EllingtonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1896
- Goldy v. DuncanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Hewes v. BaxterSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1896
3Cited by7 opinions
- Grieves v. State Ex Rel. County Atty.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1934
- Hiatt v. LeeArizona Supreme Court · 1936
- Bradley v. DavisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
- Estate of PetersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
- First National Bank of Hinton v. TateWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1935
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.