From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Anderson v. Heacock

Court of Appeal of California, Third District
Dec 17, 1956
147 Cal.App.2d 27 (Cal. Ct. App. 1956)

Opinion

Docket No. 8985.

December 17, 1956.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Plumas County denying change of venue. Bertram D. Janes, Judge. Affirmed.

Frank L. Stearns for Appellants.

Samuel B. Stewart, George Chadwick, Jr., and M.E. Cardoza for Respondent.


This is an appeal from an order denying a motion for a change of venue to the county of appellants' residence.

[1] A copy of the promissory note upon which this action was brought was attached to and made a part of the complaint. The affidavit in support of the motion does not deny the truth of the recitals in the note that it was payable in Portola in Plumas County, where the action was begun. Consequently, action upon the note was properly commenced in the county of Plumas. Section 395 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides, in part:

". . . When a defendant has contracted to perform an obligation in a particular county, either the county where such obligation is to be performed, or in which the contract in fact was entered into, or the county in which the defendant, or any such defendant, resides at the commencement of the action, shall be a proper county for the trial of an action founded on such obligation, . . ."

The respondent could, and did, elect to bring the action in the county wherein the contractual obligation was incurred and was to be discharged.

The order appealed from is affirmed.

Peek, J., and Schottky, J., concurred.


Summaries of

Anderson v. Heacock

Court of Appeal of California, Third District
Dec 17, 1956
147 Cal.App.2d 27 (Cal. Ct. App. 1956)
Case details for

Anderson v. Heacock

Case Details

Full title:J.B. ANDERSON, Respondent, v. SHERMAN L. HEACOCK et al., Appellants

Court:Court of Appeal of California, Third District

Date published: Dec 17, 1956

Citations

147 Cal.App.2d 27 (Cal. Ct. App. 1956)
304 P.2d 155

Citing Cases

Causley v. Superior Court

The only alleged obligation of the individual defendants is that upon the note itself. But contract actions…

Burke v. City of New York

There is a line of cases which holds that when an abutting landowner makes any change in the construction of…