Pierson v. McCahill

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1863Published

Before: Cope, Crocker, Norton

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that trial courts have broad discretion to permit amendments to pleadings and to manage procedural motions, such as requests for additional time or changes of venue, absent a showing of abuse of discretion.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in allowing the defendant to file an amended answer after the case was remanded.
Whether the trial court erred in granting the defendant additional time to file counter affidavits.
Whether the trial court erred in denying the plaintiff's motion to change the place of trial.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The rules relating to the amendment of pleadings are properly very liberal, and much is left to the judgment and discretion of the Court below.”

“The granting of such motion is discretionary with the Courts, subject to review only in cases of abuse.”

Synopsis

Appeal from the Fifth Judicial District.

This case was before the Supreme Court at the October Term, 1862, and a report of the proceedings on that appeal will be found in 21 Cal. 122, showing the nature of the action, the character of the pleadings, and the grounds upon which a new trial was ordered. On the filing of the remittitur, defendant moved for leave to file an amended answer, in which, in addition to the facts set forth in the original, he averred that the actual verbal agreement between him and his creditors, embraced a stipulation on their part that the reception of fifty cents on the doEar should be in fuE satisfaction of their demands, but that this stipulation was by mistake of the scrivener omitted from the written contract, and that the parties signed the same without noticing the omission. Defendant prayed that the written contract be reformed in this respect and enforced as corrected. Under the exception of plaintiff the Court permitted this amended answer to be filed. Plaintiff then filed an affidavit showing that a large number of his material witnesses resided in San Francisco County and City, where the facts about which there was dispute had transpired, and moved thereon for a change of venue to the Twelfth District Court. Defendant asked for one day’s time to file counter affidavits which under plaintiff’s exception was granted, and on the foEowing day defendant filed an affidavit contradicting many of the facts stated in the affidavit of plaintiff, and showing also that the action had originaEy been brought in the Twelfth District Court, but had on defendant’s motion, and a showing that he was a resident of Stockton, been removed to the Fifth District.

On these affidavits the motion for change of venue was heard and by the Court denied, to which plaintiff excepted. Erom this order the appeal is taken by plaintiff.

Crocker, J. delivered the opinion of the Court—Cope, C. J. and Norton, J. concurring. This action was brought to enforce a contract, in the District Court of the Twelfth Judicial District, in the City and County of San Francisco, and the defendant being a resident of the County of San Joaquin, the action was removed for trial to the District Court of that county on his application. A trial was had in the latter Court and a judgment rendered for the defendant, from which an appeal was taken, and this Court reversed the judgment and ordered a new trial. Upon the return of the case the defendant moved the Court below, upon affidavit and notice, for leave to amend his answer by setting up an alleged mistake in the contract sued on, for want of which allegation the judgment had been reversed by this Court. The Court granted leave to amend and the plaintiff excepted. The plaintiff then moved the Court, upon the pleadings and affidavit and notice, to change the place of trial to the City and County of San Francisco, which was denied and the plaintiff excepted.

The first error assigned by the appellant is, that the Court erred in allowing the defendant to file an amended answer. The amend[131]ment asked for was evidently necessary to enable the defendant to fully and fairly present his defense to the action. The fact that the new matter set up by the amendment was well known to the defendant when he filed his original answer was no good reason why he should not have been permitted to amend. The rules relating to the amendment of pleadings are properly very liberal, and much is left to the judgment and discretion of the Court below. In this case there was no error in permitting the defendant to amend.

The Court also granted the defendant one day to file counter affidavits on plaintiff’s motion to change the place of trial, and this is also assigned as error. This is also a matter of discretion in the Court, and the Court very properly granted time to file counter affidavits. If thereby the plaintiff required further time to prepare for his motion, the Court would undoubtedly have granted it; but no application to that effect seems to have been made.

The next error assigned is- that the Court ought not to have refused plaintiff’s motion for a change of the place of trial. We see no error in this action of the Court. When the defendant applied for a change of the trial from San Francisco to San Joar quin, if the convenience of witnesses required that the action should be retained for trial in San Francisco, the plaintiff should have presented that fact in opposition to that motion, and if he neglected to do so, it is doubtful whether he could afterwards apply to the Court to which it had been thus removed to have it sent back again. (Loehr v. Latham, 15 Cal. 418.) The granting of such motion is discretionary with the Courts, subject to review only in cases of abuse. (Sloan v. Smith, 3 Id. 412.) No such abuse of discretion is shown in this case.

Pierson v. McCahill

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief