gno.law

Jansing v. Bowen

California Court of Appeal · Docket No. 7779. · 1931-09-23 · Published · 3 P.2d 327 · 117 Cal. App. 31 · 1931 Cal. App. LEXIS 406

MARIE JANSING, Respondent, v. F. BOWEN, Appellant

Proceeding
appeal from an order
Trial court
Superior Court of San Mateo County
Trial judge
George H. Buck
Outcome
reversed — Reversed.
Area
civil
Panel
Benjamin K. Knight (author)

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion — Knight

KNIGHT, J.

Plaintiff brought this action in San Mateo County to recover damages for the alleged breach of a contract to install a heating apparatus in an apartment house in Redwood City; and defendant appeared in the action by filing a demurrer to the complaint, and a motion for a change of venue to the county of Santa Clara based upon the ground' that he was a resident of that county. At the time the matter came on for hearing plaintiff presented a counter motion to retain the action in San Mateo County upon the ground of convenience of witnesses; and subsequently the trial court denied defendant’s motion. Prom the order made in that behalf defendant prosecutes this appeal.

The law is well settled that unless answer has been filed at the time the demand for change of venue is made', a counter motion to retain the case on the ground of convenience of witnesses will not lie, for the obvious reason that until the issues of fact are settled by answer the court cannot determine what testimony will be material.

(Sheffield v. Pickwick Stages, 191 Cal. 9 [214 Pac. 852];

Gordon *32 v. Perkins, 203 Cal. 183 [263 Pac. 231];

San Jose Hospital v. Etherton, 84 Cal. App. 516 [258 Pac. 611];

Dawson v. Dawson, 83 Cal. App. 119 [256 Pac. 491];

Woods v. Berry, 105 Cal. App. 90 [286 Pac. 1073] ;

McSherry v. Penn. C. G. M. Co., 97 Cal. 637 [32 Pac. 711] ;

Pascoe v. Baker, 158 Cal. 232 [110 Pac. 815];

Cook v. Pendergast, 61 Cal. 72;

Heald v. Hendy, 65 Cal. 321 [4 Pac. 27];

Armstrong v. Superior Court, 63 Cal. 410.) There was no answer filed in the present case; and therefore, since plaintiff did not challenge the legal sufficiency of defendant’s moving papers, nor question the merits of his motion, he was entitled to have the action transferred to the county in which he resided. The order appealed from is reversed.

Tyler, P. J., and Cashin, J., concurred.

Cites, in this corpus

Cited by