Simpson v. Hosin (1920) · DecisionDepot

Simpson v. Hosin

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Court of Appeal Oct 16, 1920 No. Civ. No. 2216.Published

Before: Prewett

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed an order changing the place of trial to the defendant's county of residence, holding that the defendant's affidavit sufficiently established residency and a meritorious defense despite minor clerical errors.

Issues

Whether an affidavit for change of venue must affirmatively state that the defendant is not a resident of the county where the action was filed.
Whether an affidavit of merits is sufficient if it contains a minor scrivener's error regarding the defendant's consultation with counsel.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Section 395 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that an action must be tried in the county in which the defendant resides at the commencement of the action.”

“The use of the word “and” following the words “attorney and counsel” is manifestly a mere scrivener’s mistake. The court may reject this word as surplusage”

Synopsis

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

PREWETT, P. J.,

pro tem.

This is an unusually frivolous appeal. The defendant, on motion, procured an order changing the place of trial from the county of San Joaquin to the county of Yuba, on the ground that he resides in the latter county. The appellants appeal from this order. The record is utterly barren of debatable questions. Only two points are made by the appellants.

[586]

[1]

(1) It is claimed that the affidavit does not show affirmatively that the defendant was

not

a resident of the county of San Joaquin. But the code does not require this negative showing. Section 395 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that an action must be tried in the county in which the defendant resides at the commencement of the action. The moving party in his affidavit states: “At the time of the commencement of the action I did reside, and do now reside and continuously for more than three years immediately last past, I have resided in the County of Tuba, etc.” Certain authorities are cited by the appellants; but these authorities are not in point; in fact, they have no application to the case of a sole defendant.

[2]

(2) Objection is made that the affidavit of merits does not state that the defendant was advised by his counsel that he had a good defense to the action on the merits. The portions of the affidavit of the defendant material to this point are as follows: “I have employed and retained J. E. Ebert ... as my attorney and counsel in said action . . . that I have fully and fairly stated all the facts of the case in said action, and that I have fully and fairly stated the case in this action to my said attorney and counsel

and

said J. E. Ebert and under such statement I am advised by my said attorney and counsel, and I verily believe I have a good and substantial defense on the merits to said action.” The use of the word “and” following the words “attorney and counsel” is manifestly a mere scrivener’s mistake. The court may reject this word as surplusage; but even as the affidavit is written there exists no ambiguity. The affiant states that he has stated the facts of the case to

Simpson v. Hosin

AI Brief

Synopsis

PREWETT, P. J.,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief