From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Woodbury v. Nevada S. R. Co.

Supreme Court of California
Jun 7, 1898
121 Cal. 165 (Cal. 1898)


         Department One

         APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County substituting attorneys for the corporation defendant and from an order refusing to vacate the same. Lucien Shaw, Judge.


         A. B. Hotchkiss, for Appellants.

         M. W. Conkling, Substituted Attorney, for Nevada Southern Railway Company, H. C. Dillon, for Plaintiff, W. J. Hunsaker, for Receiver, Bicknell & Trask, for Metropolitan Trust Company, Lee & Scott, for National Bank, Respondents.


         THE COURT          The Nevada Southern Railway Company, the defendant in the above-entitled action, made its application to the superior court for the substitution of M. W. Conkling as its attorney of record therein, in the place of A. B. Hotchkiss, and the court made its order for such substitution. From this order, and from a subsequent order refusing to set it aside, the present appeal has been taken.

         Whether the request for the substitution of attorneys that was presented to the superior court was made by the defendant was a question of fact for that court to determine, and its conclusion that it did make the request will not be reviewed here upon t he suggestion of the displaced attorney that [53 P. 451] the court did not properly consider the evidence before it.

         The right of a party to change his attorney of record is conferred by section 284 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and it is only necessary for it to prefer its request for such change in order to justify the court in making an order therefor. (Downer v. Norton , 16 Cal. 436; Lee v. Superior Court , 112 Cal. 354.)

         The orders are affirmed.

Summaries of

Woodbury v. Nevada S. R. Co.

Supreme Court of California
Jun 7, 1898
121 Cal. 165 (Cal. 1898)
Case details for

Woodbury v. Nevada S. R. Co.

Case Details

Full title:R. W. WOODBURY et al., Respondents, v. NEVADA SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY et…

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Jun 7, 1898


121 Cal. 165 (Cal. 1898)
53 P. 450

Citing Cases

Telander v. Telander

The former is within his rights in seeking to dissolve the relationship of attorney and client whenever his…

Scott v. Superior Court

Much of the discussion by the respondents would be far more effective and persuasive if this were an appeal…