Parker Co., Inc. v. Exeter Refining Co.

KNIGHT, J.

The defendant corporation appeals from an order denying its motion for a change of venue from the city and county of San Francisco to the county of Los Angeles.

The action is founded on the alleged breach of a contract.

[611]

The complaint contains two counts, the first for the recovery of damages on account of loss of prospective profits, and the second for the recovery of expenditures alleged to have been made by respondent in connection with the contract.

The respective parties are domestic corporations, and appellant’s place of business is in Los Angeles. However, section 16 of article XII of the Constitution provides that a corporation “may be sued in the county where the contract is made or is to be performed, or where the obligation or liability arises or the breach occurs; or in the county where the principal place of business of such corporation is situated, subject to the power of the court to change the place of trial as in other cases ”. The motion was heard and determined on the allegations of the verified complaint and the affidavits and counter-affidavits of the respective parties; and under well settled rules, all conflicts must be resolved in favor of the prevailing party

(Lakeshore Cattle Co.

v.

Modoc Land & Livestock Co.,

108 Cal. 261 [41 Pac. 472];

Brown

v.

San Francisco Savings Union,

122 Cal. 648 [55 Pac. 598];

Gordon

v.

Perkins,

203 Cal. 183 [263 Pac. 231]); and all reasonable inferences which are to be drawn must be in support of the trial court’s order

(Marston

v.