Las Animas & San Joaquin Land Co. v. Fatjo
California Court of Appeal
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Merced County, refusing to change the place of trial of an action. E. N. Rector, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Sullivan & Sullivan, and Theo. J. Roche, for Appellants.
1Opinion of the CourtBurnett, J.
This is an appeal from an order denying a motion for a change of the place of trial from Merced county to the city and county of San Francisco.
The motion was made upon the ground that the said city and county is the place of residence of defendants.
The order is sought to be upheld for the reason that the action is local in its nature, relating to an injury to real property situated in said Merced county.
The question is to be determined by a consideration of the framework of the complaint and of sections 392 and 395 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The former section, as far as material here,…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Hicks v. DrewCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- Lower Kings River Water Ditch Co. v. Kings River & Fresno Canal Co.California Supreme Court · 1882
- Booker v. AitkenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
- Commercial Bank of Santa Ana v. PritchardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- McGonigle v. AtchisonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1885
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Elton v. Anheuser-Busch Beverage Group, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1996
- Scholes v. Lambirth Trucking Co.California Supreme Court · 2020
- Placer Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Walsh (In Re Marino)District Court, N.D. California · 1985
- McClatchy v. Laguna Lands LimitedCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1917
- Bond Investment Co. v. BlakeleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.