Prader v. Merchant
W. A. PRADER v. JOEL MERCHANT and HENRY COLE
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Shafter (author), Richard W. Rhodes, Silas S. Sanderson, Sawyer, Brian S. Currey
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 — Shafter
SHAFTER, J.
This is an appeal from an order refusing to change the place of trial. The change was moved for by the defendants, and on the ground that they were residents of the county of Sonoma, to which county they sought to have the case transferred from Sacramento county, where the action was brought.
The plaintiff resisted the motion on the ground that the convenience of witnesses required that the case should be tried in the county of Sacramento.
On inspecting the affidavits used on the hearing of the motion in the district court, we are satisfied that there was no *139abuse of discretion on the part of the court in denying the motion: Sloan v. Smith, 3 Cal. 410; People v. Fisher, 6 Cal. 154; Loehr v. Latham, 15 Cal. 418.
The order is affirmed.
We concur: Sanderson, C. J.; Sawyer, J.; Currey, J.; Rhodes, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- Loehr v. Latham · 1860-07-01
- People v. Fisher · 1856-07-01
- Sloan v. Smith · 1853-10-15