Sequoia Pine Mills, Inc. v. Superior Court of Tuolumne County
Decision Date | 18 January 1968 |
Citation | 258 Cal.App.2d 65,65 Cal.Rptr. 353 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | SEQUOIA PINE MILLS, INC., et al., Petitioners, v. The SUPERIOR COURT OF TUOLUMNE COUNTY, Respondent; Ted AVRAM, Real Party in Interest. Civ. 892. |
Ted Avram filed an action in the Superior Court of Tuolumne County (No. 11065) against Sequoia Pine Mills, Inc., Fritz Hutcheson, Norman J. Winsor and Walter M. Stuermer for the dissolution of a partnership consisting of Messrs. Hutcheson, Winsor, Stuermer and himself; his allegation was that the individuals were actually doing business as a copartnership in the manufacture of lumber with a principal working Locus in Tuolumne County where the mill was located, and that they used the corporate name as an Alter ego. It was further alleged that the business interests of the individuals were: Fritz Hutcheson--40 percent, Norman J. Winsor--40 percent, Walter M. Stuermer--10 percent, and Ted Avram--10 percent. The plaintiff asked that the partnership be dissolved, that he be granted an accounting of all the business affairs of the copartnership, and that the assets be sold and the net surplus divided among the parties. In a second cause of action, plaintiff asked that the other partners be required to pay him a fair amount for his interest in Sequoia Pine Mills, Inc.
In due course, the petitioners filed a demurrer and at the same time a notice of motion for a change of venue from Tuolumne County to Los Angeles County. The supporting affidavits alleged that the principal place of business of Sequoia Pine Mills, Inc. was in Los Angeles County and that Fritz Hutcheson and Norman J. Winsor resided in counties other than Tuolumne at the time of the filing of the case; that the contract among the parties forming the alleged partnership was executed in Los Angeles County; and that as there was no special provision contained in the writing as to the place of performance the statutory presumption (Code Civ.Proc. § 395) was that the contract would be carried out in the place where it was made, that is to say, Los Angeles County. It appears that a showing was made by the moving parties that every provision of the code sections requiring a change of venue was complied with except in one instance[258 Cal.App.2d 67] --there was no showing of any kind by affidavit or otherwise that the defendant Walter M. Stuermer resided in any county other than Tuolumne. The record was entirely silent with respect to that issue.
The trial court denied a change of venue stating in a memorandum opinion filed at the same time that in view of the fact that the lumber mill was located on land in Tuolumne County, section 392 of the Code of Civil Procedure authorized the retention of the action in that county. However, in essence, there can be no question but that the suit is one for the dissolution of a partnership which was based on contract; the real parties in interest admit that section 392 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply; the ownership of the mill is merely incidental to the business relations of the alleged partners and the case is transitory. (Ponderosa Sky Ranch v. Okay Improvement Corp., 204 Cal.App.2d 227, 22 Cal.Rptr. 90; Turlock Theatre Co. v. Laws, 12 Cal.2d 573, 86 P.2d 345, 120 A.L.R. 786.)
Section 395 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides in part as follows:
'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, or any such 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.'
Thus, the Code of Civil Procedure makes it clear that the county in which a defendant resides is a proper county for the trial of such a case. As above noted, there was a showing that all of the defendants except one resided outside of Tuolumne County. However, that left one defendant who presumably resided in the county where the suit was brought. As is said in Aisbett v. Paradise Mt. Min. etc. Co., 21 Cal.App. 267, at page 268, 131 P. 330, at page 331:
In La Mirada Community Hospital v. Superior Court, 249 A.C.A. 46, 57 Cal.Rptr. 42, the court was faced with a situation where there was no showing in the moving papers as to the residence of some of the defendants. The court cited the rule in Aisbett v. Paradise Mt. Min. etc. Co., supra, 21 Cal.App. 267, 131 P. 330 and stated at page 48 of 249 A.C.A., at page 43 of 57 Cal.Rptr. that:
A point is made by the petitioners of the fact that the superior court in its memorandum of decision states that a reason for denying the petition to change the venue to Los Angeles County was the fact that the court thought that section...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Greenberger v. Superior Court
...not have been considered when the trial court exercised its discretion in finding good cause. (See Sequoia Pine Mills, Inc. v. Superior Court (1968) 258 Cal.App.2d 65, 69-70, 65 Cal.Rptr. 353.)3 Hollis is not identical in all respects with our case since in Hollis, the defendant disclaimed ......
-
Munoz v. Davis
...was properly sustained on any ground then the trial court's ruling must be upheld on appeal. (Sequoia Pine Mills, Inc. v. Superior Court (1968) 258 Cal.App.2d 65, 68-69, 65 Cal.Rptr. 353.) We have identified two grounds which justify sustaining the demurrer to the equitable indemnity claim ......
-
Smith v. Walter E. Heller & Co.
...329, 48 P. 117, see also International etc. Workers v. Landowitz, 20 Cal.2d 418, 423, 126 P.2d 609; Sequoia Pine Mills, Inc. v. Superior Court, 258 Cal.App.2d 65, 68-69, 65 Cal.Rptr. 353; People v. Evans, 249 Cal.App.2d 254, 257, 57 Cal.Rptr. 276; Harley v. Superior Court, 226 Cal.App.2d 43......
-
Dupuy v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County
...affidavits. (See People v. St. Martin, 1 Cal.3d 524, 537-538, 83 Cal.Rptr. 166, 463 P.2d 390; Sequoia Pine Mills, Inc. v. Superior Court, 258 Cal.App.2d 65, 69-70, 65 Cal.Rptr. 353.) In addition to the facts hereinabove set forth, the complaint alleges that petitioner, 38 years old, is a ci......