Pennie

Pennie v. Visher

Good Law
1892 Cal. LEXIS 683·94 Cal. 323·29 P. 711
Supreme Court of CaliforniaApril 11, 1892No. 14327California287 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Sharpstein, J.

D. M. Vance, one of the defendants in the above-entitled action, appeals from an order denying his motion to set aside the default entered against him, and from the judgment entered in said action. Appellant demurred to the plaintiff's complaint, and moved for a change of the place of trial upon an affidavit stating the grounds upon which his motion was based. The motion was overruled, and that ruling is complained of as being erroneous. We think the grounds specified for a change of the place of trial insufficient; and were they not, there does not appear to have been a demand for the change in writing, such as *326 is required by section 396 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (Estrada v. Oreña, 54 Cal. 407 ; Byrne v. Byrne, 57 Cal. 348 .) The demurrer was overruled before the motion for a change of the place of trial was. Both were properly overruled, and the order in which they were overruled could not in any way affect the substantial rights of the parties, as it might have done if the motion to change the place of trial had been granted after the demurrer was overruled. As it is, it appears to be nothing more serious than a harmless irregularity which we are bound to…

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.