APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, denying a motion for change of place of trial. James M. Troutt, Judge. Reversed.

The essential facts are identical with those in The Lachman Company v. California Berry Growers' Assn., ante, p. 748.

S. W. Mohlkenbuhr and Thos. W. Firby for Appellant.

Philip S. Ehrlich for Respondent.

LANGDON, P. J.-This is an appeal from an order denying the motion of the defendant T. Toyoshima to change the place of trial of the action from the city and county of San Francisco to San Benito County, the residence of said defendant.

[1] By stipulation and order heretofore made herein, this appeal is considered upon the transcript and briefs on file in this court in the case of The Lachman Company v. Central California Berry Growers' Assn. et al., ante, p. 748 [209 Pac. 379]. The essential facts are identical in the two cases, and for the reasons given in the opinion filed in said case of The Lachman Company v. Central California Berry Growers' Assn., the order appealed from herein is reversed, with directions to the trial court to grant the motion of defendant Toyoshima to change the place of trial of the action to the county of his residence.

Nourse, J., and Sturtevant, J., concurred.

[Civ. No. 4240. First Appellate District, Division Two.-August 12, 1922.]

THE LACHMAN COMPANY (a Corporation), Respondent, v. CENTRAL CALIFORNIA BERRY GROWERS' ASSOCIATION (a Corporation), et al., Defendants; T. TOYAMA, Appellant.

[1] PLACE OF TRIAL-MOTION FOR CHANGE-ACTION FOR DAMAGESPARTIES.-Order reversed on authority of The Lachman Company v. Central California Berry Growers' Assn., ante, p. 748. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, denying a motion for change of place of trial. James M. Troutt, Judge. Reversed.

The essential facts are identical with those in The Lachman Company v. California Berry Growers' Assn., ante, p. 748.

S. W. Mohlkenbuhr and Thomas W. Firby for Appellant.

Philip S. Ehrlich for Respondent.

LANGDON, P. J.-This is an appeal from an order denying the motion of the defendant T. Toyama to change the place of trial of the action from the city and county of San Francisco to San Benito County, the residence of said defendant.

[1] By stipulation and order heretofore made herein, this appeal is considered upon the transcript and briefs on file in this court in the case of The Lachman Company v. Central California Berry Growers' Assn. et al., ante, p. 748 [209 Pac. 379]. The essential facts are identical in the two cases, and for the reasons given in the opinion filed in said case of The Lachman Company v. Central California Berry Growers' Assn., the order appealed from herein is reversed, with directions to the trial court to grant the motion of defendant Toyama to change the place of trial of the action to the county of his residence.

Nourse, J., and Sturtevant, J., concurred.

INDEX.

(797)

INDEX.

ABANDONMENT. See Appeal, 2.

ACCOUNTING. See Guardian and Ward, 1, 5-7.

ACCOUNT BOOKS. See Contracts, 3.

ADOPTION.

-

-

1. ORAL AGREEMENT SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE EVIDENCE. Where
a petition for adoption consummated in 1903 did not attempt
to go beyond the requirement of section 226 of the Civil Code,
which, in effect, only required that the adopted child should
be treated like an ordinary child of the adopting person, the
adoption papers therein did not constitute such a written agree-
ment as to exclude evidence of an oral agreement alleged to have
been made by the adopting persons at the time of the adoption, in
an action to compel specific performance of the latter agreement.
(Corison v. Williams, 282.)

-

2. SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE EVIDENCE-FAILURE TO CALL FATHER
-FINDINGS.-In an action to compel specific performance of an
oral agreement alleged to have been made by the adopting persons
at the time of adoption, where the only evidence offered to prove
the making of such agreement consists of oral admissions against
interest made by the adopting persons, and the plaintiff fails to
call as a witness her father, the only living person who could
tell of the final agreement between himself and the adopting per-
sons, the court is justified in finding that the alleged oral agree-
ment was not consummated, notwithstanding the defendants intro-
duce no evidence upon the subject. (Id.)

3. PETITION TO MAKE CHILD LEGITIMATE HEIR-RIGHT TO INHERIT.-
The fact that the petition for the adoption of plaintiff, in ad-
dition to complying with the requirements of section 226 of the
Civil Code, alleged that the petitioners desired to make her their
"legitimate" heir only put her in the same place in their family which
a child of their blood would have occupied, and did not give her a
contract right to succeed to their property at their death. (Id.)

ADVANCEMENTS. See Factor, 1, 3.

ADVERSE POSSESSION. See Public Commons, 4.