Shirley v. Nodine
| Decision Date | 01 January 1878 |
| Citation | 1 Idaho 696 |
| Parties | J. Q. Shirley, Respondent, v. F. Nodine Et Al., Appellants. |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
PLACE OF TRIAL-VENUE.-The convenience of witnesses residing in a neighboring state will not entitle a party to a change of the place of trial.
IDEM-PRACTICE.-An affidavit stating that a party believes the convenience of witnesses will be promoted by a change of the place of trial is not sufficient without showing upon what grounds such belief is founded.
IDEM.-The mere statement, in an affidavit, of a belief that the witness residing in an adjoining state will voluntarily attend, is not sufficient to entitle a party to a change of the place of trial.
APPEAL from the Third Judicial District, Oneida County.
F. E Ensign, for the Appellants. Huston & Gray, for the Respondent.
delivered the opinion.
This is an action commenced by the respondents against the appellants in the district court of Oneida county; and at the June term, 1877, thereof, the appellants filed their motion for a change of venue to the county of Ada, on the ground that the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would thereby be promoted. The affidavit of Mr. Nodine, which was filed in support of the motion, after stating the facts which are expected to be proved and the names of witnesses, shows that all the witnesses reside in the state of Oregon, and also if the trial of the action can be changed to Ada county, the affiant believes the attendance of the witnesses can be procured at the trial. The court overruled the motion for a change of venue, and it is from this order that the appeal is taken.
A motion of this character is always addressed to the sound discretion of the court, and it is only in cases which clearly show that this discretion has been abused that the decision of the court will be interfered with. It is evident from the showing made to the district court that all the witnesses, whose convenience, it is alleged, the change of the place will promote, reside beyond the jurisdiction of the court, in an adjoining state, and that their attendance cannot be compelled by its process. The mere fact that the party moving for the change believes that the witnesses will voluntarily attend, is not sufficient, without stating on what grounds the belief is founded. This court cannot act upon the mere belief or opinion of a party, but it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robinson v. White
...changing the place of trial or refusing to change it will not be disturbed in the absence of a manifest abuse of that discretion: Shirley v. Nodine, 1 Idaho 696; Gibbert v. Washington Water Power Co., 19 Idaho 637, 115 P. 924; Lessman v. Anschustigui, 37 Idaho 127, 215 P. 460; Ondes v. Bunk......
-
Stephan v. Hoffman
...changing the place of trial or refusing to change it will not be disturbed in the absence of a manifest abuse of that discretion: Shirley v. Nodine, 1 Idaho 696; Gibbert v. Washington Water Power Co., 19 Idaho 637, 115 P. 924; Lessman v. Anschustigui, 37 Idaho 127, 215 P. 460; Ondes v. Bunk......
-
Gibbert v. The Washington Water Power Company
... ... part of respondents. ( State v. Rooke, 10 Idaho 403, ... 79 P. 82; Hyde v. Harkness, 1 Idaho 601; Shirley ... v. Nodine, 1 Idaho 696; Sommercamp v. Catlow, 1 Idaho ... STEELE, ... District Judge. Ailshie, Presiding J., concurs. SULLIVAN, J., ... ...
-
Brown v. Tamarack & Custer Consolidated Mining Co.
... ... or necessary, or as to the residence or occupation of any ... witness they expected to have at the trial. (Shirley v ... Nodine, 1 Idaho 696; Cook v. Pendergast, 61 ... Cal. 72; Smith v. Mack, 24 N.Y.S. 131, 70 Hun, 517; ... Lyman v. Grammercy Club, 50 N.Y.S ... ...