White

White v. Fresno National Bank

Good Law
1893 Cal. LEXIS 879·98 Cal. 166·32 P. 979
Supreme Court of CaliforniaApril 21, 189314758California633 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Garoutte, J.

This action was brought to recover a balance alleged to be due from defendant to plaintiffs for the construction of its bank building in the city of Fresno. Plaintiffs are assignees of the contractor, and his contract was confined to the woodwork of the building. The contractor completed his work to the satisfaction of the architect, but the bank claims that it was not done within the time fixed by the terms of the contract, and by reason thereof it suffered damage in loss of rents, etc., and asks a set-off to that extent. Judgment went for the plaintiffs, a motion for a new trial was denied, and the appeal is prosecuted from the judgment and order.

The principal point upon which appellant relies for a reversal of the judgment is that by virtue of section 16, article XII. of the constitution, defendant being a corporation could not be sued in San Joaquin County, and therefore no jurisdiction was ever obtained over it. When this action was originally brought, the bank objected to the jurisdiction of the superior court of San Joaquin County to proceed in the matter, and applied to this court for a writ of prohibition based upon such alleged want of jurisdiction, asking for an order…

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.