Carruthers v. Crown Products Co.

/ VALLÉE, J.

Appeal from an order changing the place of trial of the action from the county of Los Angeles to the county of Riverside on the ground that the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the change.

[327]

The action is for breach of contract. The motion for a change of place of trial was made by the plaintiff on the ground stated. As a trial court had broad discretion in determining a motion of this character the only question presented is whether the court arbitrarily abused its discretion in granting the motion.

(Rosicrucian Fellowship

v.

Rosicrucian etc. Church,

72 Cal.App.2d 171, 186 [164 P.2d 282];

Nelson

v.

Enos,

47 Cal.App.2d 79, 81 [117 P.2d 429].) Appellants argue that the mere nonresidence of respondent’s witnesses in Riverside, within an area subject to subpoena to Los Angeles, without any proof of inconvenience, does not establish inconvenience to such witnesses so as to justify a change of venue from Los Angeles to Riverside, citing

Willingham

v.

Pecora,

44 Cal.App.2d 289 [112 P.2d 328] and

Barnett

v.

United Oil Co.,

5 Cal.App.2d 175 [42 P.2d 656], which held that the convenience of the witnesses in attending the trial, rather than the places of their actual residences, is the issue to be decided by the trial court. They also argue that there was no evidence before the court that the ends of justice would be promoted by a change in the place of trial. We believe that the pleadings and the affidavits filed in support of the motion sufficiently establish that the convenience of the witnesses in attending the trial and the ends of justice will be promoted by a change in the place of trial. In any event, we cannot say that the court abused its discretion in granting the motion.