People v. Plumas Eureka Mining Co.
Synopsis
Place or Teial.—In actions to enforce the lien of a tax, the county, where the property on which the lien exists is situated is the place of trial, rather than that where the defendant resides.
Change or Venue.—In a motion to change the venue for the convenience of witnesses, if the plaintiff’s evidence is in the county where tlie suit is brought, and the defendant fails to show that his evidence is not accessible in said county, the motion should he denied.
By the Court: If it be true, as claimed by defendant, that the action was not properly brought in Sacramento county, under subdivision 16 of section 433 of the Political Code, then it should have been commenced in Plumas. (C. C. P., Sec. 392.)
The defendant, when he applied for a change of the place of trial, could rely therefore only on the facts stated in his affidavit in respect to the convenience of witnesses.
It is apparent that the evidence on which the case of plaintiff must rest is in Sacramento. The defendant fails to show that any evidence as to the regularity of the proceedings of the county officials of Plumas, prior to the transmission of the delinquent list to the Controller of State, or any evidence of facts constituting a defense to the present action, is more accessible in San Francisco than in Sacramento.
The District Court erred in granting the motion to change the place of trial.
The order is reversed.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)