Case Name: R. W. WOODBURY et al., Respondents, v. NEVADA SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY et al., Appellants
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1898-06-07
Citations: 121 Cal. 165
Docket Number: L. A. No. 383
Parties: R. W. WOODBURY et al., Respondents, v. NEVADA SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY et al., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 121
Pages: 165–166

Head Matter:
[L. A. No. 383.
Department One.
June 7, 1898.]
R. W. WOODBURY et al., Respondents, v. NEVADA SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY et al., Appellants.
Substitution of Attorneys.—The right of a party to change his attorney of record is conferred by section 284 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and it is only necessary for such party to prefer a request for such change in order to justify the court in making an order therefor.
Id.—Request of Corporation for Substitution—Question of Fact—Review upon Appead.—Whether the request for the substitution of attorneys that was presented to the superior court was made by the corporation defendant was a question of fact for that court to deter mine, and its conclusion that the corporation did make the request will not be reviewed in the appellate court upon the suggestion of the displaced attorney that the superior court did not properly consider the evidence before it on that question.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County substituting attorneys for the corporation defendant and from an order refusing to vacate the same. Lueien Shaw, Judge.
A. B. Hotchkiss, for Appellants.
M. W. Conkling, Substituted Attorney, for Nevada Southern Railway Company, H. C. Dillon, for Plaintiff, W. J. Hunsaker, for Receiver, Bicknell & Trask, for Metropolitan Trust Company, Lee & Scott, for National Bank, Respondents.

Opinion:
THE COURT.
The Nevada Southern Railway Company, the defendant in the above-entitled action, made its application to the superior court for the substitution of M. W. Conkling as its attorney of record therein, in the place of A. B. Hotchkiss, and the court made its order for such substitution. From this order, and from a subsequent order refusing to set it aside, the present appeal has been taken.
'Whether the request for the substitution of attorneys that was presented to the superior court was made by the defendant was a question of fact for that court to determine, 'and its conclusion that it did make the request will not be reviewed here upon the suggestion of the displaced attorney that the court did not properly consider the evidence before it.
The right of a party to change his attorney of record is conferred by section 284 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and it is only necessary for it to prefer its request for such change in order to justify the court in making an order therefor. (Downer v. Norton, 16 Cal. 436; Lee v. Superior Court, 112 Cal. 354.)
The orders are affirmed.