Fischer

Morthrift Plan v. Fischer

Good Law
196 Cal. App. 2d 865
Appellate Division, Superior Court of CaliforniaOctober 24, 1961Civ. A. No. 127681California3,032 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Mundt, J.

This is an appeal by the defendants from an order of the Municipal Court, Sacramento Judicial District, denying the defendants’ motion for a change of venue from that court to the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of El Dorado.

*866 In its complaint the plaintiff sets forth that it is the assignee of seller’s interest in a conditional sales contract allegedly entered into between United Enterprises, as seller of a water conditioner, and the defendants as buyers. A copy of the purported conditional sales contract is attached to the complaint. Plaintiff prays for judgment for the entire contract balance, together with costs, because of an alleged breach of the agreement to pay the first installment.

The defendants filed a demurrer to the complaint, together with a motion for change of place of trial to the court which would have jurisdiction of the subject matter in El Dorado County. They filed an affidavit as to their defense on the merits and an affidavit and points and authorities in connection with their motion to change venue to El Dorado County.

By their affidavit the defendants clearly indicated that they were at all times residents of El…

Dissenting Opinion

Beckers, J.

I dissent:

After a careful review of the Appellate Department opinions referred to by the majority, I believe that the rule subscribed to by the Fresno Appellate Department should be the rule of decision in this court. I would hold that the contract itself should show the geographic location of the place where performance is to be made and if it does not do so it is not “a special contract in writing” showing that the contract is to be performed at some other place than where it was in fact made. I would not require that the county of performance be specified by name but I would require that there be a sufficient specific designation of the geographic location of the place of performance to justify the court in judicially noticing that it is within a particular county or other venue area. I would not permit extrinsic evidence to show the location if it could not be determined from the contract itself with the aid of judicial notice.

The majority seems to take the view that all that is required is for the contract to show that it is not performable in the county where made. I believe that the party seeking to try the cause elsewhere must show exactly where it is to be per *872…

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.