Huffaker v. Gray
Before: Lennon
Synopsis
Judgment—Action to Vacate—Fraud as Ground.—A judgment will not be set aside on the ground of fraud in it's procurement unless “ the fraud was extrinsic or collateral and prevented a fair submission of the controversy.
Id.—Theft and Suppression of Documents.—Theft and suppression, by the successful party to an action, of documents necessary to the opposite party for the presentation of his case, do not constitute extrinsic or collateral fraud warranting the annulment of a judgment.
LENNON, P. J.
This is an appeal from a final judgment rendered upon a demurrer by the .superior court of the county of Alameda.
A bill in equity was filed to vacate and set aside a judgment in the case of John Gray
v.
E. Huffaker, rendered by the same court on January 30, 1915. The allegations of the bill are that the judgment sought to be vacated was procured by fraud on the part of the plaintiff in that action, for the reason that said plaintiff stole from defendant certain papers enumerated and described in said bill, which papers were necessary for a proper defense to said action; that on account of being deprived of such written evidence, defendant was unable by his own testimony to sustain his defense; that defendant did not discover the fact that the said papers had been stolen by plaintiff until thirty days before bringing the present action. A demurrer to the bill was sustained. The question upon this appeal is as to the correctness of the ruling on demurrer. The issue being raised by demurrer, we assume, for a decision of the question involved, that all the allegations of the complaint are true.
It seems that the facts in this case bring it squarely within the reasoning of the case of
Pico
v.
Cohn,
91 Cal. 129, [25 Am. St. Rep. 159, 13 L. R. A. 336, 25 Pac. 970, 27 Pac. 537]. The discussion in that ease fairly answers all the arguments of appellant here. The court there points out that it has been settled beyond all controversy that a decree will not be vacated merely because it was obtained by forged documents or perjured testimony, giving as a reason for the rule, that there must be an end of litigation; and that when parties have once submitted a matter, or have had an opportunity of submitting it, for investigation and determination, and when they have exhausted every means for reviewing such determination in the same proceeding, it must be regarded as final and conclusive unless it can be shown that the jurisdiction of the court has been imposed upon, or that the prevailing
[607]
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)