Miller v. Kern County Land Co.

Good Law
1902 Cal. LEXIS 920·7 Cal. Unrep. 9·70 P. 183
Supreme Court of CaliforniaSeptember 17, 1902S. F. No. 2014California706 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Temple, J.

This is an appeal from an order refusing to grant a change of venue on the ground of the convenience of witnesses. Both parties are corporations which have their principal places of business in San Francisco, where the suit was brought. The action was to recover damages for injury to real property situate in Kern county. A former motion for a change of venue was made, based on section 392 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides that actions for injuries to real property must be tried in the county where the land is situated. An order denying a change of venue was affirmed here, on the ground that section 16, article 12, of the constitution denied a defendant corporation that right *10 in such actions: 134 Cal. 586 , 66 Pac. 856 . The complaint shows that plaintiff had constructed and was maintaining a canal over land belonging to the defendant, which defendant, as is alleged, wrongfully obstructed, to the damage of plaintiff in the sum of $25,000. Instead of directly averring that it owns an easement over the land of defendant, plaintiff states in its complaint a great many facts and circumstances from which it is supposed the right to such an easement must necessarily…

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.