Borba v. Toste

MOORE, P. J.

The question for decision in this case is whether there was an abuse of discretion by the trial court in ordering the place of trial to be changed from Los Angeles to Tulare County upon the ground of convenience of the witnesses of plaintiff.

It is conceded by defendants that the determination of a motion for change of venue upon the ground of convenience of witnesses rests largely in the sound discretion of the court and that its order will not be disturbed except for an abuse

[592]

of such discretion (citing

Pascoe

v.

Baker,

158 Cal. 232 [110 Pac. 815];

Scott

v.

Stuart,

190 Cal. 526, 527 [213 Pac. 947];

Wrin

v.

Ohlandt,

213 Cal. 158, 159 [1 P. (2d) 991]). However their contention on this appeal is that, their showing that the convenience of the would be secured and the ends of justice would be promoted by a denial of plaintiff’s motion, yet there is no showing to the contrary by plaintiff. (First

Trust Joint Stock Land Bank

v.

Meredith,

16 Cal. App. (2d) 504 [60 P. (2d) 1023, 62 P. (2d) 369].) In other words, they insist that there is no conflict in the evidence contained in the affidavits nor is there a denial of the effect of such that the plaintiff voluntarily entered into the which he seeks to have cancelled; that he was fully advised with reference thereto; that he thoroughly the significance of his act; and that defendants have expended on plaintiff’s behalf sums greatly in excess of the value of the property transferred by deed from him to