Kim

Mitchell v. Kim

Good Law
1919 Cal. App. LEXIS 719·42 Cal. App. 111·183 P. 368
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 8, 1919Civ. No. 2011.California1,292 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Chipman, J.

Motion to change the place of trial. The motion was denied and defendant Cross appeals from the order. The action was commenced in the superior court of Colusa County. The motion was made “upon the grounds that defendant, P. B. Cross, is, and at the time of the commencement of the above-entitled action was, a resident of the city and county of San Francisco.”

It is alleged in the complaint that Kim and Porter, at the times mentioned in the complaint and at the commencement of the action, were copartners; that defendants became indebted to plaintiffs in the sum of $4,960.01 “for the building and construction of a certain ditch and lateral work on what is known as Baker Creek, in the counties of Glenn and Colusa, for the defendants’ ’ at their special instance and request and for their benefit; that said defendants promised and agreed to pay plaintiffs for said construction work as soon as it was completed; that said work has been completed and demand made upon defendants to pay plaintiffs for the same, but defendants have failed and refused so to do.

In support of the motion defendant Cross made and filed an affidavit stating that at the commencement of the action he was a…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.