[7] "It is the rule that the question of where the contract was to be performed is one of fact, and the determination by the trial court of that question will not be disturbed if there is any substantial evidence in the record to support it, and all conflicts must be resolved in favor of the prevailing party." ( Gallo v. Boyle Mfg. Co., Inc., 35 Cal.App.2d 168, 169 [ 94 P.2d 1010]; Swartz v. California Olive Growers' Pack. Corp.,Inc., supra, pp. 170-171.) [8] The lumber company argues that, there being no conflict in the evidence, the question of place of performance may be determined as a matter of law.
[1] It is the rule that under said constitutional provision, insofar as venue is concerned, where the breach complained of is failure to pay money due, the decisive factor is the place where payment is to be made ( Hale v. Bohannon, 38 Cal.2d 458, 466 [ 241 P.2d 4]), and a determination of this question is one of fact to be resolved by the trial court. ( Gallo v. Boyle Mfg. Co., Inc., 35 Cal.App.2d 168, 169 [ 94 P.2d 1010].) [2] It is the further rule that in the absence of agreement or stipulation to the contrary, the place of performance in the payment of a debt is the place where the creditor resides or has his place of business.
Under such circumstances, the finding of the trial court on the conflicting issues of fact will not be disturbed on appeal. ( Mitchell v. Kim, 42 Cal.App. 111, 114 [ 183 P. 368]; Lake Shore Cattle Co. v. Modock Land Livestock Co., 108 Cal. 261, 262 [41 P. 472]; Gallo v. Boyle Mfg. Co., Inc., 35 Cal.App.2d 168, 169 [ 94 P.2d 1010]; Harbinson v. Affeldt, 75 Cal.App.2d 499, 504 [ 171 P.2d 474]; C.H. Parker Co., Inc. v. Exeter Refining Co., 26 Cal.App.2d 610, 611 [ 79 P.2d 1114].) The order is affirmed.
Craig Brokerage Co. v. Goddard Co., 92 Ind. App. 243 [ 175 N.E. 19, 23], follows both Meyer v. Sullivan, supra, and Pond Creek etc. Co. v. Clark, supra, Lyons Milling Co. v. Cusimano, 161 La. 198 [ 108 So. 414, 415], also follows the Pond case. Respondent relies on Gallo v. Boyle Mfg. Co., 35 Cal.App.2d 168 [ 94 P.2d 1010]. There the court said (p. 170): "The purchase order in evidence contains the following language: `Please deliver to us via Santa Fe, f.o.b. Modesto, the following items . . .' As delivery of an article sold is an essential part of the contract, and as the contract called for delivery in Stanislaus County, it would seem that the foregoing is ample evidence upon which the trial court could make a finding that the contract was to be performed in that county."
'It is the rule that the question of where the contract was to be performed is one of fact, and the determination by the trial court of that question will not be disturbed if there is any substantial evidence in the record to support it, and all conflicts must be resolved in favor of the prevailing party. If, therefore, the facts upon which the present motion was heard and determined reasonably support the inference that the contract was to be performed in Stanislaus county, the order must be affirmed. Parker Co., Inc., v. Exeter Refining Co., 26 Cal.App.2d 610, 79 P.2d 1114.' Gallo v. Boyle Manufacturing Co., Inc., 35 Cal.App.2d 168, 169, 170, 94 P.2d 1010, 1011. In Swartz v. California Olive Growers' Packing Corp., 56 Cal.App.2d 168, 170, 171, 133 P.2d 20, 22, the court said: 'Such a wide degree of latitude is allowed the trial court in deciding this ever-recurring controversy that the appellate courts will not disturb the order made upon conflicting evidence unless it is clear that the order was the result of arbitrary action.