Caffrey v. Tilton
| Decision Date | 05 February 1952 |
| Court | California Supreme Court |
| Parties | CAFFREY v. TILTON et al. S. F. 18226. |
F. T. Leonetti, Glendale, for appellants.
Frank J. Baumgarten, San Francisco, for respondent.
The plaintiff is a resident of the City and County of San Francisco. The plaintiff sued the defendant in San Francisco for declaratory relief in reference to his rights under a contract which they had entered into in Los Angeles County. The defendant appeals from an order denying his motion for a change of venue to Los Angeles.
At the time this action was commenced the defendant was and for many years prior thereto had been a resident of the County of Los Angeles and engaged in a gear manufacturing business. The contract contemplated the employment of the plaintiff as the defendant's sales representative for northern California on a commission basis. This agreement is contained in a letter from the defendant to the plaintiff which lists certain 'companies we have done work for' in northern California. The plaintiff obtained an order from one of these companies but the defendant told him not to negotiate with that company because its financial situation was precarious. The defendant added that if the plaintiff did not wish to continue his work subject to this condition he could consider the agreement as revoked. The plaintiff thereupon filed the complaint in this action alleging that he had performed all terms of the agreement but that the defendant seeks to modify or terminate it, and asking for a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to a commission on present and future business from this particular company, for a declaratory judgment ordering that the plaintiff receive such compensation, and for a declaration of the rights and duties of the parties.
It is undisputed that under the general provisions of section 395 of the Code of Civil Procedure the defendant is entitled to have this action tried in Los Angeles which is both his residence and the place where the contract was entered into. It is contended, however, that there is a 'special contract in writing' sufficient to justify the denial of the requested change of venue in accordance with the following portion of that section: 'When a defendant has contracted to perform an obligation in a particular county, either the county where such obligation is to be performed, or in which the contract in fact was entered into, or the county in which the defendant * * * resides at the commencement of the action, shall be a proper county for the trial of an action founded on such obligation, and the county in which such obligation is incurred shall be deemed to be the county in which it is to be performed unless there is a special contract in writing to the contrary.' (Italics added.)
No place of performance is specified in the letter setting forth the agreement. The plaintiff relies on the declaration of Civil Code section 1489 that: . He contends that San Francisco, the place of his residence, is the place of performance by the defendant and that the section has the effect of a 'special contract in writing'...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mitchell v. Superior Court
...is Armstrong v. Smith, supra, 49 Cal.App.2d 528, 122 P.2d 115. The Armstrong construction was expressly followed in Caffery v. Tilton (1952) 38 Cal.2d 371, 240 P.2d 273, and in numerous reported opinions of the Court of In Armstrong, supra, plaintiff contracted in writing with defendant to ......
-
Mosby v. Superior Court
...in writing' as contemplated by section 395 is one whose provisions are express and not dependent upon implication. (Caffrey v. Tilton (1952) 38 Cal.2d 371, 374, 240 P.2d 273.) Thus neither statutory exception to the preferred place of trial for a contract action against an individual defend......
-
Braunstein v. Superior Court In and For Monterey County
...(1942) 52 Cal.App.2d 615, 126 P.2d 887; Dawson v. Goff (1954) 43 Cal.2d 310, 273 P.2d 1.) The Supreme Court in Caffrey v. Tilton (1952) 38 Cal.2d 371, 374, 240 P.2d 273, 274, quoted with approval the following from the Armstrong case: "If the parties have only impliedly agreed to a place of......
-
Pacific Bal Industries v. Northern Timber, Inc.
...P.2d at page 117. This holding has been cited with approval in Hale v. Bohannon, 38 Cal.2d 458, 468-469, 241 P.2d 4; Caffrey v. Tilton, 38 Cal.2d 371, 374, 240 P.2d 273; Campbell v. Clifford, 52 Cal.App.2d 615, 618, 126 P.2d 887; Wilson v. Hoffman, 81 Cal.App.2d 664, 666-667, 184 P.2d 951; ......