Roberts

An action was commenced in the superior court of Alameda County to recover on a written contract for the payment of money. The defendant, who is the appellant here, filed with his demurrer to the complaint a demand and motion for a change of venue to Los Angeles County, where, according to his affidavit of merits, he resides. The motion was denied, and the appeal was taken from the order.

It is alleged in the affidavit mentioned that defendant “fully stated all of the facts relating to said demand in this action to his counsel herein.” We are of the"opinion that a statement “of all the facts relating to said demand” was not equivalent to a statement of “the case” or of “the facts of the case,” and the affidavit in this particular was insufficient to meet the requirements of the rule established by the following cases: Nickerson v. California Raisin Co., 61 Cal. 268 ; People v. Larue, 66 Cal. 235 [ 5 Pac. 157 ]; Palmer v. Barclay, 92 Cal. 199 [ 28 Pac. 226 ]; Westover v. Bridgford, 25 Cal. App. 548 [ 144 Pac. 313 ]; Hanna v. Deroch, 52 Cal. App. 389 [ 198 Pac. 1006 ].

Appellant contends that the rule stated in the cases cited has been changed by the decision in Hughes v. Elliott,…