Prendergast

Prendergast v. Mitchell-Silliman Co.

Good Law
1924 Cal. App. LEXIS 596·65 Cal. App. 456·224 P. 243
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 26, 1924Civ. No. 4813.California1,158 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Sturtevant, J.

This is an appeal from an order denying the motion of the defendant to- -change -the place of trial. On May 17, 1921, the plaintiff commenced an action against the defendants by filing in the office of the county clerk of San Francisco a -complaint in which he alleged that he had been employed by the defendants, had rendered service for them, and that the reasonable value of his services was $2,600, -of which $1,823 remained unpaid. Thereafter summons was served on each of the defendants except the fictitious defendants John Doe and Richard Roe. Thereafter C. P. Lacey, Esq., as attorney for all defendants except the fictitious defendants, gave notice: “Said motion will be made upon the ground that at the time of the commencement of said action the defendants O. P. Silliman, W. G. Silliman and Lee Post, were and are now residents of Monterey County, California, and the Mitchell-Sillim-an Company, a corporation, and the Monterey County Bank, a corporation, at the time of the commencement of said action had and maintained, and still have and maintain their respective principal places of business in Monterey County, California, and that said Monterey County, California, is the proper…

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.