Marsh

Houston v. Marsh

Good Law
1 Cal. Dist. Ct. 43
California District CourtApril 15, 1857California383 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Munson, J.

*44 Motion to change the venue to Nevada county.

It appearing from the affidavits that the defendant, at the time of making the contract sued on, was one of the Supervisors of Nevada county, and, as such, employed plaintiff to do certain work upon the Court House and: jail of that county. After the work was completed defendant presented his account to the Board of Supervisors for allowance,; but it: was rejected for the reason that defendant had not been, authorized to contract with plaintiff; plaintiff then sued the county of Nevada, but was'defeated' because he could not show that defendant was. authorized by the county to make the contract. He now sues defendant individually.' Defendant asks for a change of venue on- the- following grounds:

1st. That the convenience of witnesses and ends of justice will be promoted by it.

2d, That the contract was made by defendant as a public officer, and, tinder section nineteen of the act regulating proceedings in civil cases,:the action is local and must be tried in Nevada county.

Admitting this to be .á transitory action, yet it is admitted by both plaintiff and defendant that the contract upon which the action is founded, and all the…

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.