White v. Anderson

California Court of Appeal Mar 20, 1942 No. Civ. 3009Published

Before: Barnard

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a defendant is not entitled to a change of venue to their county of residence if the action is brought in a county where at least one other defendant resides and the complaint attempts in good faith to state a cause of action against that resident defendant.

Issues

Whether a defendant is entitled to a change of venue when the complaint alleges a cause of action against a co-defendant residing in the county where the action was commenced.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“A defendant is not entitled to have an action removed to the county of his residence unless it appears that none of the other defendants are residents of the county where the action is brought.”

“Even when all of the defendants join in a demand for or consent to a change of venue the cause will be retained if the complaint attempts in apparent good faith to state a cause of action against a defendant who resides in the county”

BARNARD, P. J.

This is an appeal from an order refusing to grant a motion and demand for a change of venue.

[635]

In the original complaint Anderson, a resident of Fresno County, was named as sole defendant. It was alleged that he stole certain property from plaintiff’s assignor and that he had refused to return the property or pay the value thereof although demand had been duly made. In an amended complaint Highiet was added as a party defendant and the stated value of the property taken was increased. It was there alleged that property of the value of $20,000 was taken, that thereafter a portion of the property, being of the value of $18,000, came into possession of the defendant Highiet, and that demand had been made on both defendants for a return of the goods. The property taken was described but it was not alleged which particular articles had come into possession of Highiet. The prayer was for the return of the property or its value in case the same could not be returned.

The defendant Highiet, who was a resident of Stanislaus County, filed a demurrer to the amended complaint and also filed a motion and demand for a change of venue, demanding that “the place of trial of the above entitled action be transferred’’ to the Superior Court of Stanislaus County, together with an affidavit in the usual form. After a hearing the court entered an order denying the motion and demand for a change of venue, and the defendant Highiet has appealed.

The appellant contends that the amended complaint does not sufficiently allege a cause of action as against him for the reason that it fails to allege any sort of joint action or joint relationship between him and the other defendant, that the allegations of the complaint present a situation which can only be tried or remedied by separate actions against the two defendants, and that he is, therefore, entitled to a change of venue as a matter of right under sections 395-399 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He concedes that a good cause of action is alleged as against Anderson, but contends that the complaint is deficient in this respect as against him. In effect it is claimed that two causes of action are alleged or attempted to be alleged and that the one against the appellant should have been brought in Stanislaus County. It thus appears that the real contention is that the appellant was an improper party in and to the action brought in Fresno County. While this situation, if true, could have been reached in another way, it does not furnish a sufficient reason for transferring the entire action to the other county. Section 395 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides, among other

White v. Anderson

AI Brief

BARNARD, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief