Deasy v. Taylor (1918) · DecisionDepot

Deasy v. Taylor

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Court of Appeal Dec 21, 1918 No. Civ. No. 2563.Published

Before: Lennon

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the judgment voiding agreements and transfers, holding that the defendants' actions constituted constructive fraud and that the plaintiff had sufficiently complied with statutory requirements for rescission.

Issues

Whether the trial court's findings of fact were supported by conflicting evidence.
Whether the defendants' conduct constituted constructive fraud justifying rescission.
Whether the plaintiff was barred by laches from seeking rescission.
Whether the plaintiff was entitled to rescind against all defendants despite the lack of a conspiracy finding.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“These findings certainly make the actions of the defendant, George S. Stevenson, amount to a constructive fraud upon the-plaintiff.”

“Knowing plaintiff’s physical and mental condition it was certainly a fraud upon her for Stevenson to secure her signature to the assignments and agreements.”

“Obviously, if appellants have parted with no consideration, they cannot be injured by plaintiff’s delay, which we consider not to be an unreasonable one under all the circumstances of the case.”

Synopsis

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Alameda County, and from an order denying a new trial. Wm. M. Conley, Judge Presiding, Affirmed.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

LENNON, P. J.

This is an appeal by the defendants, Charles H. Taylor, Edward F. Taylor, Joseph E. Taylor, John McKenna, also known as Jas. F. McKenna, Cornelius I. Hark-ins, Catherine Harkins, Matilda Harkins, G. S. Stevenson, as administrator of the estate of Cecelia Stevenson, deceased, and George S. Stevenson, from a judgment of the superior court of Alameda County, adjudging and decreeing certain agree

[237]

ments and transfers executed by the plaintiff in favor of the defendants to be null and void, and also from the order denying the said defendants’ motion for a new trial.

Appellants’ first contention is that certain findings of the trial court are not sustained by the evidence. We have carefully read the discussion in appellants’ brief upon this subject. That discussion, however, is, upon the whole, a discussion of the weight of the evidence. The objections are to seven different findings. It would serve no useful purpose to go into a discussion of the evidence, and to point out in detail the support for each of these findings separately. The objection to many of them is the same. Suffice it to say that an examination of the record discloses to us that the evidence on these matters is conflicting, and the findings of the trial court may not, therefore, be disturbed by this court.

There seems to us to be only one point in the various contentions of the appellants against these findings which needs to be specifically noticed here. It is this: Appellants in their brief set out the following findings:

“Cecelia MeFadden Stevenson and said defendant George S. Stevenson, well knowing she [plaintiff] was sick and intoxicated and unable to transact any business,

fraudulently

procured and caused her to sign ...”

“Said George S. Stevenson, well knowing her [plaintiff’s] condition and that she was sick and intoxicated and incapable of knowing or understanding any business whatever, or to understand the nature, purport or effect of any paper or document she might sign or execute, and by means of his influence and control of plaintiff’s mind and will did

Deasy v. Taylor

AI Brief

Synopsis

LENNON, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief