Case Name: McDONNELL, Respondent, v. COLLINS et al., Appellant
Court: Montana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Montana
Decision Date: 1897-04-12
Citations: 19 Mont. 372
Docket Number: 
Parties: McDONNELL, Respondent, v. COLLINS et al., Appellant.
Judges: Hunt and Buck, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Montana Reports
Volume: 19
Pages: 372–373

Head Matter:
McDONNELL, Respondent, v. COLLINS et al., Appellant.
[Submitted April 6, 1897.
Decided April 12, 1897.]
Venue — Action on Account. — Actions on an account should he brought in the county in which the defendants, or some of them, reside, or in the county in which plaintiff resides and in which defendants, or any of them, may he found,
Same. — In such an action a motion for a change of venue should he granted, when it appears that all the defendants reside and were served with summons in a county other than that in which the action is hrought.
Appeal from District Cowrt, Fergus County. Dudley Du Bose, Judge.
Action by John J. McDonnell against T. E. Collins and J. T. Armington. Defendants’ application for a change of venue was denied, and they appeal.
Reversed.
Statement of the case by the Justice delivering the opinion.
Plaintiff brought this suit in the district court of Fergus county to recover the amount of an account claimed to be due and owing from defendants. Defendants appeared, and filed their demurrer to the complaint, and at the same time filed affidavits of merits, and a demand in writing that the place of trial be changed to Cascade county, where both defendants now reside, and did reside at the time this action was commenced, in accordance with the provisions of section 614, Code of Civil Procedure. The court refused to change the place of trial to Cascade county as demanded by the defendants. From this action of the court this appeal is prosecuted.
James Ponovcm, for Appellants.
Von Tobel dé Gheadle, for Respondent.

Opinion:
Pemberton, C. J.
We think this is an action of that character which section 613, Code of Civil Procedure, requires to be brought in the county where the defendants, or some of them, reside at the commencement of the action, or where the plaintiff resides, and the defendants, or any of them, may be found. It is not disputed that both defendants resided in Cascade county at the time this action was commenced, and that they were both served with summons in this suit in Cascade county; nor is it claimed that either of them was found in Fergus county. We think, under the showing made by the defendants, that the court erred in refusing to change the venue of the case to Cascade county. (Wallace v. Owsley, 11 Mont. 219, 27 Pac. 790; Paige v. Carroll, 61 Cal. 215; Cook v. Pendergast, Id. 72; Watkins v. Degener, 63 Cal. 500; Yore v. Murphy, 10 Mont. 304, 25 Pac. 1039.) The order appealed from is reversed and the case remanded, with instructions to the district court to grant the change of venue.
Reversed and Remanded.
Hunt and Buck, JJ., concur.