Anaheim Water Co. v. Jurupa Land & Water Co.

California Supreme Court May 12, 1900 No. L.A. No. 606.Published

Before: Cooper

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. When a judge is disqualified, the court must transfer the case to the nearest or most accessible court as mandated by statute, without considering the convenience of witnesses or the residence of parties.

Issues

Whether a disqualified judge must transfer a case to the nearest or most accessible court regardless of the convenience of witnesses or parties.
Whether the statutory requirement to transfer to the 'nearest or most accessible' court refers to accessibility from the court where the action is pending.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The case was clearly such that it was the plain statutory duty of the judge to transfer the cause to the nearest or most accessible court.”

“The words “most accessible” refer to and mean most accessible from the court in which the action is pending.”

“The word “nearest” clearly means the court nearest to the court in which the action is pending.”

Synopsis

Change of Place of Trial—Disqualification of Judge—Transfer to “Nearest” or “Most Accessible” Court.—In case of the disqualification of a judge by reason of his Interest in the subject matter of the action, he is in duty bound to transfer the cause to the nearest or most accessible court, if the parties do not agree as to where the action should be transferred for trial. If the “nearest” court is also the “most accessible,” the judge has no discretion; but if some other court than the “nearest” in distance is the “most accessible” in means of communication, the court may transfer the cause to the “most accessible” court, though it may not be the “nearest.”

Id.—Convenience of Witnesses—Determination by Qualified Judge.— The disqualified judge cannot properly pass upon a question of the convenience of witnesses; hut that matter is to be determined by a qualified judge of the nearest or most accessible court.

Id.—Discretion of Judge—Conflicting Affidavits—Motion by Part of Defendants.—A judge, if properly passing upon a motion to transfer the cause to some other court than the nearest or most accessible court on account of the convenience of witnesses, floes not abuse his discretion in refusing such motion, where the affidavits are conflicting as to what is the most convenient court for witnesses, and only forty-five out of two hundred and fifty defendants joined in the motion.

COOPER, C.

This appeal is by certain defendants from an order made by the superior court of the county of Orange, changing the place of trial from said county to the superior court of Los Angeles county. The order was made at the request of plaintiffs upon affidavit showing that the judge of the superior court of Orange county was disqualified by reason of personal interest in the corporation plaintiff. The fact that the judge was disqualified was conceded, but upon the hearing of the motion affidavits were filed, on behalf of certain defendants, tending to show that it would be more convenient and less expensive for the defendants making the application to have the case transferred either to the superior court of San Bernardino or of Eiverside county. These affidavits did not tend to show that the superior court of the county of Los Angeles was not the nearest and most accessible court to the superior court of Orange county; but the defendants who have appealed claim that the court must take into consideration the residence of defendants and their witnesses, and the conven

[570]

ience of witnesses, in determining which is the most accessible court, and transfer the cause to such court. We do not think this the correct interpretation of the statute. It is provided in the Code of Civil Procedure, section 398, that where from any reason the judge of the court where the action is pending is disqualified, and the parties do not agree as to the court to which the place of trial shall be changed, then the action “must be transferred for trial .... to the nearest or mo§t accessible court where the like objection or causes for making the order does not exist.” There was no question as to the disqualification of the judge, and the parties did not agree as to where the action should be transferred for trial. The case was clearly such that it was the plain statutory duty of the judge to transfer the cause to the nearest or most accessible court. It was said by this court in construing said section 398, in

Krumdick v. Crump,

98 Cal. 119: “There should have been no postponement on account of the absence of the defendant, no continuances, no time given for the filing of briefs, no holding under advisement, no entertaining of any counter-motion based upon grounds calling for the exercise of judicial discretion. The plain injunction of the statute leaves the disqualified judge in such cases no discretion. He has but one thing to do, and it is his duty to do that thing at once.” It is claimed that since the decision in

Anaheim Water Co. v. Jurupa Land & Water Co.

AI Brief

Synopsis

COOPER, C.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief