Case Name: ZUA DANIELS, Respondent, v. M. J. CHURCH, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1892-08-22
Citations: 96 Cal. 13
Docket Number: No. 14822
Parties: ZUA DANIELS, Respondent, v. M. J. CHURCH, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 96
Pages: 13–14

Head Matter:
[No. 14822.
Department Two.—
August 22, 1892.]
ZUA DANIELS, Respondent, v. M. J. CHURCH, Appellant.
Place of Trial — Order Refusing to Change Venue — Conflicting Evidence — Review upon Appeal. — An order refusing to change the place of trial of an action to the county in which the defendant claims to reside will not be reversed upon appeal if the evidence as to the place of residence of the defendant is conflicting.
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of San Joaquin County denying a change of venue.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
George E. Church, and Swinnerton & Rutherford, for Appellant.
James H. & John E. Budd, and Nutter & De Vries, for Respondent.

Opinion:
Sharpstein, J.
— This appeal is from an order of the superior court of the county of San Joaquin refusing, overruling, and denying said defendant's motion and application for a change of the place of trial in said above-entitled action from the county of San Joaquin to the county of Fresno.
If, at the time of the commencement of the action, the defendant resided in the county of Fresno, he was entitled to have the action tried in that county. If not, not. It appears by the record that defendant, in support of his motion, introduced the affidavits of several persons who swore that he resided in Fresno County. The plaintiff, in opposition to the motion, introduced several affidavits in which the affiants swore that defendant resided in Calaveras County. The conflict is apparent, and an order refusing to change the place of trial of an action to the county in which the defendant, claims to reside will not be reversed on appeal if the evidence as to the place of residence of the defendant is conflicting. (Hastings v. Keller, 69 Cal. 605; Creditors v. Welch, 55 Cal. 469.)
Order affirmed.
McFarland, J., and De Haven, J., concurred.
Hearing in Bank denied.