R. H. ELAM et al., Appellants, v. W. E. GRIFFIN et al., Respondents
Elam v. Griffin
R. H. ELAM et al., Appellants, v. W. E. GRIFFIN et al., Respondents.
[No. 1254.]
R. H. ELAM et al., Appellants, v. W. E. GRIFFIN et al., Respondents.
Change oe Venue — Demand eor. — Defendants, residents of Eureka County, were sued, in an action for debt, in Lincoln County: Held, that the court had no authority to change the venue, because no demand in writing was made therefor, as contemplated by section 3043, Gen. Stat.
/Appeal from.the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, Lincoln County.
C. H. Patchen, G. S, Sawyer, and Trenmor Coffin, for Appellants:
Baker & Wines, and T. J. Osborne, for Respondents:
By the Court,
Belknap, J.:
The defendants are residents of Eureka County, and are sued in an action of debt in the district court of Lincoln County. Upon their motion, the place of trial of the action was changed to the county of their residence, but no "demand in writing therefor was made, as contemplated by section 3043, Gen. Stat. The object of the demand is to allow the plaintiff an opportunity of voluntarily correcting his error by amendment, stipulation, or otherwise, without the expense and delay of a motion. (Vermont C. R. R. Co. v. Northern R. R. Co., 6 How. Pr. 106.) By omitting to make the demand, respondents waived the right to have the case heard in Eureka County, and the action became triable in Lincoln County. (Hasbrouck v. McAdams, 4 How. Pr. 342; Houck v. Lasher, 17 How. Pr. 520; Milligan v. Brophy, 2 Code Rep. 118; Estrada v. Orena, 54 Cal. 407; Byrne v. Byrne, 57 Cal. 348; Watkins v. Degener, 63 Cal. 500.)
Order reversed and cause remanded.