Byrum

Byrum v. Stockton Combined Harvester & Agricultural Works

Good Law
1891 Cal. LEXIS 1152·91 Cal. 657·27 P. 1093
Supreme Court of CaliforniaNovember 18, 1891No. 14183California604 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Temple, J.

Appeal from an order refusing a change of venue. The plaintiff resides in Stanislaus County, where the action was brought, and is a farmer. He purchased from defendant a Sliippee combined harvester, which, as he avers, defendant guaranteed would do good and satisfactory work, but which wholly failed to perform as guaranteed, by reason whereof he was damaged.

*658 Defendant moved for a change of venue to San Joaquin County, upon an affidavit showing that the principal place of business of defendant is in Stockton, San Joaquin County, and that the contract sued upon was made at defendant’s said principal place of business, also that the breach of said contract, if any, did not occur iii Stanislaus County. There was also an affidavit of merit.

On the hearing of the motion, the plaintiff read in answer only his verified complaint.

It is there averred that defendant is doing business in the state of California, and among other counties, in the county of Stanislaus; that, among other things, the business of the corporation was to manufacture and sell a certain kind of machinery known as the Shippee . combined harvester, with Shippee and Grattan improvements.

A contract is set out…

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.