The primary purpose of the action being to cancel the note and deed of trust upon the ground of fraud, the action was transitory and not local, and was properly tried in Alameda County. ( Howe v. Tucker, supra, 219 Cal. 193; see also Eckstrand v. Wilshusen (1933) 217 Cal. 380, 382 [ 18 P.2d 931]; Fletcher v. Nordesta Homes, Inc. (1961) 192 Cal.App.2d 33, 35 [ 13 Cal.Rptr. 226]; Vaughan v. Roberts (1941) 45 Cal.App.2d 246 [ 113 P.2d 884]; Cade v. Superior Court (1961) 191 Cal.App.2d 554, 559 [ 12 Cal.Rptr. 847]; Myers v. Superior Court (1946) 75 Cal.App.2d 925, 930 [ 172 P.2d 84]; Reid v. Kerr (1923) 64 Cal.App. 117, 120-121 [ 220 P. 688]; Grable v. Grable (1960) 180 Cal.App.2d 353, 359-360 [ 4 Cal.Rptr. 353].) It resulted in a valid and binding judgment.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 395) The affidavit of J.W. Fielder concerning the residence of Jerry Fielder stated that "of my own knowledge defendant Jerry Fielder was at all times hereinabove mentioned a resident of the County of Solano. . . ." Although it is true that there are cases which hold that an affidavit of one codefendant concerning another is a conclusion of law and is of no value ( O'Brien v. O'Brien, supra; Johnston v. Benton, 73 Cal.App. 565 [ 239 P. 60]), we are convinced that the holding of Fletcher v. Nordesta Homes, Inc., 192 Cal.App.2d 33 [ 13 Cal.Rptr. 226], is applicable to the case at bench. [1] The Fletcher case, relying on two early Supreme Court cases, held that an affidavit showing that all the defendants were residents of a particular county is prima facie proof of that fact in the absence of any denial or contrary proof whatsoever.