Thomas v. Placerville Gold Quartz Mining Co.
California Supreme Court
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, refusing to change the place of trial' of an action. The facts appear in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtMcKinstry, J.
Defendant, an English corporation, demurred to the complaint and moved for a change of the place of trial from San Francisco to El Dorado, on the grounds that defendant resided in the latter county, and that the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the change.
Neither a plaintiff nor a defendant can move for a change of the place of trial, because of the convenience of witnesses, until after answer. (Cook v. Pendergast, 61 Cal. 79.) Defendant has never designated a person upon whom service of process can be had. (Stats. 1871-72, p. 826.) The summons was…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Cook v. PendergastCalifornia Supreme Court · 1882
- People v. Central RailroadNew York Supreme Court · 1867
3Cited by31 opinions
- Hale v. BohannonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952
- Denver & R. G. R. v. RodderCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1900
- San Jose Hospital v. EthertonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927
- Kaw Boiler Works v. FrymyerSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1924
- Bohn v. Better Biscuits, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1938
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.