Case Name: EZEIKEL HALL v. THE CENTRAL PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1875
Citations: 49 Cal. 454
Docket Number: No. 3,856
Parties: EZEIKEL HALL v. THE CENTRAL PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 49
Pages: 454–454

Head Matter:
[No. 3,856.]
EZEIKEL HALL v. THE CENTRAL PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY.
____ • Change of Yentje.—When a defendant moves to change the place of trial to the county where he resides, the Court should deny the motion, if it appears that the convenience of witnesses requires the cause to be tried in the county where it is pending.
Appeal from the District Court, Fifth Judicial District, County of San Joaquin.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
S. W. Sanderson, for the Appellant.
Terry & McKinne, for the Respondent.

Opinion:
By the Court, Crockett, J.:
The action was commenced in San Joaquin county, and the defendant moved to change the place of trial to Sacramento county, the place of its residence. The motion was resisted on the ground that the convenience of witnesses required that the action be tried in San Joaquin. The motion was denied, and the defendant appeals from the order denying it. The action was commenced after the Code of Civil Procedure took effect. In Edwards v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company (48 Cal. 460), we held that under the former Practice Act, in a similar case, the place of trial ought not to be changed, if the convenience of witnesses, required that the action be tried in the county where it was pending. The Code of Civil Procedure has made no change in the law, which requires a modification of the rule, and the rule has been so long established that we do not feel at liberty to depart from it. The authorities are fully referred to in the case cited, and need not be repeated here. It was satisfactorily shown at the hearing of the motion that the convenience of witnesses required the action to be tried in San Joaquin.
Order affirmed.