Hynes v. M.J. M.M. Consolidated

California Supreme Court Oct 15, 1914 No. L.A. No. 3273.Published

Before: Shaw

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the plaintiffs' equitable action to set aside a prior judgment was barred by the statute of limitations and the doctrine of laches, and that certain parties were further precluded by the doctrine of res judicata.

Issues

Whether an equitable action to set aside a judgment is barred by the statute of limitations under Code of Civil Procedure section 343.
Whether the doctrine of laches bars a claim to land where the claimants failed to act until the property significantly increased in value.
Whether prior judgments in related litigation are conclusive upon the parties and their successors.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We think the point that the actions are barred by the statute of limitations is well taken.”

“The equitable rule that stale demands will not be recognized and enforced in equity, commonly called the doctrine of laches, is also a sufficient bar in this case.”

“The judgment is affirmed.”

Synopsis

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Cullinan & Hickey, James F. Peck, Walter Shelton, Chas. C. Boynton, and Frank M. Hultman, for Appellant.

Frank H. Short, Geo. E. Whitaker, Everts & Ewing, J. W. McKinley, Hunsaker & Britt, and Thomas Scott, for Respondents.

SHAW, J.

The object of the action of the plaintiff was to declare that certain of the defendants were trustees holding,

[652]

as such, the title to section 36, township 12 north, range 24 west, in Kern County, for the use.and benefit of the heirs of Charles H. Gilman, deceased, for a conveyance thereof by or for said defendants to said heirs, and further that a certain judgment rendered against one S. Davis, under whom said heirs claim, in favor of the people of the state of California, on December 27, 1892, be set aside. The judgment referred to is the same judgment that was under consideration by this court in

People

Davis,

143 Cal. 673, [77 Pac. 651] ;

Lake

Bonynge,

161 Cal. 120, [118 Pac. 535], and

Lake

Superior Court,

165 Cal. 182, [131 Pac. 371].

J. B. Treadwell and Fred W. Lake were made defendants and it was said that they had or claimed some interest in the premises. They appeared and filed a cross-complaint against the other defendants, alleging that they were interested with said Gilman in his lifetime in said section of land, and asking practically the same relief against the other defendants as that asked by the plaintiff Hynes on behalf of the Gilman heirs. To this complaint and cross-complaint the other defendants filed demurrers. The court sustained these demurrers without leave to amend, and thereupon entered judgment against the plaintiff on his complaint and against Treadwell and Lake on their cross-complaint, declaring that they should take nothing by their respective actions. From this judgment the plaintiff and said cross-complainants appeal.

The land above described was one of the school sections belonging to the state. The aforesaid S. Davis applied to purchase the same from the state, and on March 20, 1889, he having paid the sum of one hundred and sixty dollars and interest to that date on the purchase price, leaving six hundred and forty dollars of the principal unpaid, the register of the state land-office issued to him a certificate of purchase therefor. The effect of the aforesaid judgment of December 27, 1892, was to declare that said certificate was null and void and to terminate all right, interest, and estate of Davis in and to the land.

Hynes v. M.J. M.M. Consolidated

AI Brief

Synopsis

SHAW, J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief