Krueger

James Rolph & Co. v. Krueger

Good Law
105 Cal. App. 35·1930 Cal. App. LEXIS 658·286 P. 1060
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 2, 1930Docket No. 6987.California617 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

McKENZIE, J.

Plaintiff commenced an action in the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco against the defendant. In due time defendant appeared in said action and filed a demurrer and answer to the complaint and at the same time filed a notice of motion to the end that the action be transferred to Los Angeles County, his place of residence. Before the motion for change of venue came on for hearing plaintiff filed a notice of motion to the end that the action be retained and tried in the San Francisco court on the ground of the convenience of witnesses. Defendant did not file any affidavit or make any showing in opposition to plaintiff’s motion; nor did plaintiff in any way contest the sufficiency of defendant’s showing in regard to having the case transferred to Los Angeles. Both motions came on for hearing at the same time and the trial court granted plaintiff’s motion and denied that of the defendant. From both orders the defendant appeals.

The issue presented to this court is free from technicalities and is directed solely to the question as to whether or not under rule XX 6 (a) of the Judicial Council (which was in force at the time the proceedings herein were had, and…

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.