Hammond

Hammond v. Ocean Shore Development Co.

Good Law
1913 Cal. App. LEXIS 36·22 Cal. App. 167·133 P. 978
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 31, 1913Civ. No. 1071.California2,309 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Burnett, J.

Plaintiff brought the action to recover the sum of three hundred and thirty-five dollars which, it is alleged, he was induced, by false and fraudulent representations, to pay to defendant as a part of the purchase price -of certain lots of land in San Mateo County. Defendant appeared and in proper form moved for a change of venue to the city and county of San Francisco, supporting the motion by an affidavit of the president of the corporation in which it was set out: That said defendant has now and did have at the time of the commencement of this action, its principal place of business in the city and county of San Francisco, and does not now and never did maintain any office of any character in the county of Mono; that the contract referred to in the complaint on file herein and attached thereto, was made at and was to be performed in the said city and county of San Francisco; that if there was any breach of said contract it occurred in said city and county; and concluding with the usual averment of meritorious defense. The motion was heard upon this affidavit and the complaint in the action, and duly granted, and the appeal is from said order.

Section 16 of article XII 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.