Procedural Posture
Petitioner teacher appealed judgments from the Superior Court of Butte County (California) that granted the demurrer of respondent county auditor to the teacher's petition for a writ to require the auditor to pay her salary out of a county fund apportioned for her school district under Cal. Terminal. Code § 1858 (3) that had been requested by a county superintendent of schools.
Overview
The teacher claimed that she had contracted with the district through the county superintendent and had performed the requirements of her contract. The teacher also contended that the auditor was required to issue the warrant for her salary and contrary to the auditor's contention the superintendent was authorized to hire the teacher and request that she be paid. The court determined that the teacher had performed her duties as required by the contract. The court also determined that the superintendent had the authority to employ the teacher and request that she be paid pursuant to Cal. Terminal. Code § 1564. The court held that the auditor was required to issue the warrant for the teacher's salary pursuant to Cal. Terminal.
Outcome: ada defense attorney
The court reversed the judgments of the trial court and remanded to the trial court with directions to overrule the demurrer to the teacher's petition.
Procedural Posture
Appellant vendee challenged the order of the Superior Court of Sonoma County (California) that denied the vendee's motion for a change of venue. Respondent vendors brought an action to obtain the balance due on a contract for the sale of real property. The vendors argued that venue was mandated by Cal. Civ. Code § 392 (1); the vendee argued that Cal. Civ. Code § 395 required the action to be brought in the county of the vendee's residence.
Overview
An action was filed by several vendors against a vendee to recover the money due on a contract for the sale of real estate. The vendors filed the action in the county where the land was located pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 392(1). The vendee filed a motion to transfer the action to the county of his residence pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 395, which the trial court denied. On review, the court held that the action was an action at law to recover money due on the contract and did not concern any damages, rights, titles, or estates in the land itself. In that sense, the action was no different than attempting to collect on a promissory note. Consequently, the action was "transitory" rather than "local" and was governed by § 395, which required all non-real estate related actions to be brought in the county of the defendant's residence.
Outcome
The court reversed the order of the trial court that denied the vendee's motion for a change of the place of trial.
0 kommentar(er)
