Wood, Curtis & Co. v. Herman Mining Co.
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
CHIPMAN, C.
Certain four defendants appeal from an order denying their motion to change the place of trial from Sacramento County to Alameda County, the place of their alleged residence. The action is to recover for merchandise alleged to have been sold and delivered by plaintiff and certain assignors of plaintiff to defendants. Summons was duly served on defendants Henshaw, H. A. Tubbs, and Greenwood, on April 7, 1902, and defendant Susan A. Tubbs voluntarily appeared, together with the other defendants last above named, and joined with them in the proceeding herein. On April 28, 1902,…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- McSherry v. Pennsylvania Consolidated Gold Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1893
- Greenleaf v. JacksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
- Rathgeb v. TiscorniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884
- Greenleaf v. JackCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
3Cited by15 opinions
- Brown v. Happy Valley Fruit Growers, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1929
- Lyons v. Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co.California Supreme Court · 1942
- Sourbis v. RhoadsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920
- Fitzpatrick v. Sonoma CountyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
- Pittman v. CarstenbrookCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1909
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.