(2) The ultimate determination of this question is a matter resting very largely in the sound discretion of the trial court. Sander v. Dieseth, 230 Minn. 125, 40 N.W.2d 844; Chellico v. Martire, 227 Minn. 74, 34 N.W.2d 155; State ex rel. Berg v. District Court, 205 Minn. 407, 286 N.W. 355; Badger v. Kishkunas, 203 Minn. 602, 281 N.W. 878; State ex rel. Kulla v. District Court, 200 Minn. 633, 274 N.W. 673. 2.
Such a procedure would be manifestly inefficient, tend to prolong litigation, and inconvenience the parties. State ex rel. Security State Bank v. District Court, 150 Minn. 498, 185 N.W. 1019; State ex rel. Berg v. District Court, 205 Minn. 407, 286 N.W. 355; Badger v. Kishkunas, 203 Minn. 602, 281 N.W. 878; State ex rel. Ward v. District Court, 200 Minn. 632, 274 N.W. 623. Peremptory writ denied.
We think that it is sufficient in the present cases to state that we have compared relators' affidavits with those received over the same objection in King v. Schultz, 231 Minn. 569, 43 N.W.2d 278, and have found that those received in the King case without discussion are but slightly more detailed than those in the present cases. If respondents thought that any of the witnesses named by relators were incompetent or that their testimony would be unnecessary or inadmissible, they should have submitted counteraffidavits to the district court so stating. See, Badger v. Kishkunas, 203 Minn. 602, 281 N.W. 878. It is apparent that if relators find it necessary and are entitled to call the witnesses named in their affidavits, they are amply justified in requesting this change of venue, and it was an abuse of discretion to deny their motion. State ex rel. Kulla v. District Court, 200 Minn. 633, 274 N.W. 673; Badger v. Kishkunas, 203 Minn. 602, 281 N.W. 878; State ex rel. Berg v. District Court, 205 Minn. 407, 286 N.W. 355; King v. Schultz, 231 Minn. 569, 43 N.W.2d 278. 2.
of the trial court to which the application is made, and will not be reversed by this court unless there appears to have been an abuse of discretion. Wilson v. Richards, 28 Minn. 337, 9 N.W. 872; Olivier v. Cunningham, 51 Minn. 232, 53 N.W. 462; Sims v. American Steel Barge Co. 56 Minn. 68, 57 N.W. 322, 45 A.S.R. 451; Murray Cure Institutes Co. v. Ward, 108 Minn. 527, 121 N.W. 878; State ex rel. Nesseth v. District Court, 186 Minn. 513, 243 N.W. 692; Fauler v. C. B. Q. R. Co. 191 Minn. 637, 253 N.W. 884; State ex rel. Minnesota Nat. Bank v. District Court, 195 Minn. 169, 262 N.W. 155; State ex rel. Tax v. District Court, 185 Minn. 501, 241 N.W. 681; State ex rel. Austin Mut. Ins. Co. v. District Court, 194 Minn. 595, 261 N.W. 701; Eichten v. Central Minnesota C. P. Assn. 221 Minn. 349, 22 N.W.2d 218; State ex rel. Ward v. District Court, 200 Minn. 632, 274 N.W. 623; State ex rel. Kulla v. District Court, 200 Minn. 633, 274 N.W. 673; Badger v. Kishkunas, 203 Minn. 602, 281 N.W. 878; State ex rel. Berg v. District Court, 205 Minn. 407, 286 N.W. 355; Chellico v. Martire, 227 Minn. 74, 34 N.W.2d 155; Sander v. Dieseth 230 Minn. 125, 40 N.W.2d 844. While the court is given wide latitude in the use of discretion in such cases, the facts in each case will determine whether the court exercised or abused that discretion. The accident in the instant case happened in Becker county, and therefore the cause of action arose there. That fact is one of the items to be considered in determining the question before us. Consideration should be given to the fact that should it be necessary for the jury to view the place of collision it could not well be done if the trial were had in Washington county, 224 miles away.