PICKWICK STAGES SYSTEM ET AL v. SUPERIOR COURT IN AND FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY ET AL

Reset A A Font size: Print

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California.

PICKWICK STAGES SYSTEM ET AL. v. SUPERIOR COURT IN AND FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY ET AL.

Civ. 9603.

    Decided: May 07, 1934

Willis I. Morrison and Lasher B. Gallagher, both of Los Angeles, for petitioners. Everett W. Mattoon, Co. Counsel, and Fred M. Cross, Deputy Co. Counsel, both of Los Angeles, and Russell H. Pray and Walhfred Jacobson, both of Long Beach, for respondents.

The petitioners, having been ordered to file their answer pending a motion for a change of place of trial, in the hearing on motion for change of place of trial and after the overruling of their demurrer, ask that the superior court be required to set aside said ruling and to hear and determine such motion.

By a complaint filed in the county of Los Angeles against numerous defendants, including petitioners, it was alleged that personal injuries were sustained in the state of Oregon through the negligence of defendants. A motion and demand for a change of venue to the city and county of San Francisco, and affidavits in support thereof, were filed. Petitioners appeared by demurrer to said complaint. During argument upon the motion, counsel interrupted the proceedings and moved that the same go off calendar and that the demurrer be overruled, which motion was granted. If the grounds of petitioners' motion for a change of venue were tenable, that is, that they are the only parties defendant who have any connection with or interest in the suit, the superior court of Los Angeles county is without jurisdiction thereof. Code of Civ. Proc., § 395. That it “had no power to act upon the demurrer when it did (Brady v. Times–Mirror Co., 106 Cal. 56, 39 P. 209) and its order in that regard is a nullity,” has long been settled law (Nolan v. McDuffie, 125 Cal. 334, 58 P. 4). Such an application “operates as a supersedeas or stay of proceedings, and * * * must be disposed of before any other step can be taken.” Walsh v. Superior Court, 44 Cal. App. 34, 185 P. 998, 999.

It is ordered that the writ issue as prayed.

CRAIG, Justice.

We concur: STEPHENS, P. J.; ARCHBALD, Justice pro tem.

FindLaw Career Center

    Select a Job Title


      Post a Job  |  Careers Home

    View More