Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

96 Cal. 13

Daniels v. Church

California Supreme Court

Decided August 22, 1892

California Supreme Court · decided 1892-08-22

<p>Place of Trial — Order Refusing to Change Venue — Conflicting Evidence — Review upon Appeal. — An order refusing to change the place of trial of an action to the county in which the defendant claims to reside will not be reversed upon appeal if the evidence as to the place of residence of the defendant is conflicting.</p>

Relies on People v. Rodrigo · Creditors v. Welch

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1892-08-22

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently December 1930

5 state decisions

2018921900191019201930decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Sharpstein, J.

¶1— This appeal is from an order of the superior court of the county of San Joaquin refusing, overruling, and denying said defendant’s motion and application for a change of the place of trial in said above-entitled action from the county of San Joaquin to the county of Fresno.

¶2If, at the time of the commencement of the action, the defendant resided in the county of Fresno, he was entitled to have the action tried in that county. If not, not. It appears by the record that defendant, in support of his motion, introduced the affidavits of several persons who swore that he resided in Fresno County. The plaintiff, in opposition to the motion, introduced several affidavits in which the affiants swore that defendant resided in Calaveras County. The conflict is apparent, and an order refusing to change the place of trial of an action to the county in which the defendant, claims to reside will not be reversed on appeal if the evidence as to the place of residence of the defendant is *14conflicting. (Hastings v. Keller, 69 Cal. 605; Creditors v. Welch, 55 Cal. 469.)

¶3Order affirmed.

¶4McFarland, J., and De Haven, J., concurred.

¶5Hearing in Bank denied.

/96/cal/13 · .json · Public domain