Lefurgey

Lefurgey v. Prentice

Good Law
1918 Cal. App. LEXIS 462·36 Cal. App. 338·171 P. 1080
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 20, 1918Civ. No. 1772.California1,622 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Chipman, J.

This is an appeal from an order denying defendants ’ motion for a change in the place of trial from Tuolumne County to the city and county of San Francisco. It is not disputed that at the commencement of the action defendants Prentice and Duke had their residence in said city and county, where also was the principal place of business of the defendant corporation; the defendant Craig resided in Alameda County and the defendant Kinsey resided in San Mateo County, the two latter consenting that the cause might be transferred to the city and county of San Francisco. The question presented is whether the action was personal or local in its nature as involving real property. The complaint was filed in July, 1914; the motion to change the place of trial was denied on September 28, 1914, and the transcript on appeal was filed October 1, 1914. No briefs were filed in the case until after its transfer to this court in November, appel lants’ brief having been filed November 20, 1917, and respondents, ’ January 14, 1918.

The following facts alleged in the complaint will perhaps be sufficient to indicate the character of the action: The defendant corporation was, at the commencement of the…

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.