Watt

Watt v. Bradley

Good Law
1892 Cal. LEXIS 838·95 Cal. 415·30 P. 557
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 23, 1892No. 14660California551 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Vanclief, J.

This action was commenced in the county of San Joaquin to recover $3,175.85 for medical attention, nursing, support, etc., alleged to have been furnished to the wife of defendant’s intestate in said asylum, situate in said county, at the request of said intestate. *

On motion of defendant, the court ordered a change of the place of trial from the county of San Joaquin to the county of Santa Barbara, on the alleged ground that defendant was a resident of the latter county. The plaintiffs appeal from this order, and contend that the affidavit of defendant upon which the order was made is insufficient. The following is a copy of the affidavit: —

*417 1. It is contended that the affidavit does not intelligibly refer to this action, because the title of this action is not fully stated in the affidavit.

The bill of exceptions shows that the notice of the motion “ stated that said motion would be made upon the affidavit and demand of defendant to change the place of trial, annexed and served with said notice, and upon said notice and all of the papers and pleadings on file in said action.” Both the notice and demand “were duly entitled in the action,” and the affidavit was filed with…

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.