Legal Opinion

Clanton v. Ruffner

California Supreme Court

Decided February 25, 1889No. 12431PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Yolo County refusing to change the place of trial. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

Belcher, C. C.

This action was commenced in the superior court of Sonoma County to recover damages for an alleged libel, printed and published by defendants in Yolo County. The defendants demurred to the complaint, and in due time and proper form demanded that the place of trial be changed to Yolo County, on the ground that they were residents of that county. The motion was granted, and the case transferred, and thereafter defendants filed their answer. The plaintiff then *269moved that the place of trial be changed back to Sonoma County, on the ground that the convenience of witnesses and the…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Hanchett v. FinchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1873

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Security Investment Co. v. GiffordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1918
  2. Stockton Combined Harvester & Agricultural Works v. HouserCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
  3. J. I. Case Threshing Co. v. Copren Bros.California Court of Appeal · 1917
  4. Bird v. Utica Gold Mining Co.California Court of Appeal · 1906
  5. Blevins v. BlevinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1918

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

Powered by the Exa API