In Carruth v. Superior Court (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 215, the defendants in a malicious prosecution action (an attorney and law partnership of which he was a member) unsuccessfully moved to transfer venue to the county where the attorney resided. The appellate court granted defendant's petition for writ of mandate, concluding, inter alia, that an action for malicious prosecution was not one "for injury to person" as provided under section 395, and the fact that the plaintiff sought emotional distress damages did not alter that conclusion. (Carruth, at pp. 219-220.) It found that a contrary holding "would be in clear derogation of the right of a defendant to have an action brought against him or her tried in the county of his or her residence, 'an ancient and valuable right, safe-guarded by statute and supported by a long line of decisions.'" (Id. at p. 220)