Gatje v. Armstrong
Before: Gray
Synopsis
Action to Set Aside Deed—Fraud and Undue Influence—Confidential Delations—Appeal—Support of Findings—Presumption.— In an action to set aside a conveyance for alleged fraud and undue influence exercised ny the defendant over the plaintiff, in violation of a confidential relation between them, where the judgment is for the plaintiff, it must be presumed upon appeal, in support of the findings of the court, that the court gave full credit to the testimony of the plaintiff, and refused to believe the evidence adduced by the defendant in conflict therewith.
Id.—Inadequacy of Consideration—Taking Advantage of Ignorance and Confidence.—Where the defendant took advantage of the highest trust and confidence reposed in him by the plaintiff, and of the ignorance of the plaintiff, to obtain a deed from her to him for a grossly inadequate consideration, a court of equity is warranted in finding that the deed was obtained by fraud, and that the same should be canceled.
Id.-—Equity—Adjustment of Accounts.'—The defendant having ■ obtained the conveyance by fraud, equity invests him with the character of a trustee for plaintiff, and a court of equity will do complete justice between the parties, and to this end will adjust the accounts between them in relation to the land, and will offset the claim of one against the other, and will not require the plaintiff to restore to defendant money received, where it is shown that the latter has already realized out .of the trust estate more than the amount paid by him to the plaintiff in the original transaction.
Id. — Unnecessary Tender by Plaintiff — Belief under General Prayer.—The fact that the plaintiff at one time tendered to defendant what he was not entitled to receive is immaterial; and under the prayer for general relief the court can give such relief as plaintiff was entitled to.
Id.—Fraud upon Divorced Husband—Estoppel of Defendant.—The defendant will not be permitted to validate his own fraudulent act by showing that the plaintiff, whom he has defrauded, intended by the conveyance to defraud her divorced husband.
[371]
GRAY, C.
This is an action to set aside a conveyance of upwards of three hundred acres of land in Glenn County, alleged to have been procured by defendant from plaintiff by means of fraud and undue influence exercised by the latter toward the former, and to compel defendant to reconvey said lands to plaintiff. The case was tried without a jury, findings were waived, and judgment was entered in plaintiff’s favor. The appeal is by defendant from an order denying him a new trial.
The main contention of appellant is to the effect that the decision of the court is unsupported by the evidence, and there being no findings in the ease, appellant endeavors to show that upon no reasonable theory of the evidence can the judgment of the court find support.
In support of the judgment it is proper to presume that the trial court gave full credit to the testimony of the plaintiff in the ease and refused to believe the evidence adduced by defendant wherein it conflicted with plaintiff’s evidence.
Plaintiff’s story as told upon the witness-stand was, in substance, that she was a German woman little versed in the English language, with very little knowledge of business, and no knowledge of law. That a short time before meeting the defendant she had been divorced from her husband. That the real property in dispute here had belonged in part to her divorced husband and in part to herself, the whole having a mortgage on it for about three thousand dollars. That the husband had conveyed his part of the property to plaintiff that she might dispose of it the more conveniently by sale or otherwise and thereafter restore to him in money the equivalent of his interest in the aggregate property. The plaintiff was sent by an employment agency in San Francisco, at the request of defendant, to see the defendant, on Taylor Street in said city, where defendant seems to have been waiting in bed to undergo some kind of a surgical operation. The plaintiff waited on defendant for a few days subsequent to the operation, for which the defendant paid her. He also engaged her to go with him to-Iowa Hill, in Placer County, there to cook for him and his men for wages at a certain mine which defendant was managing. Soon after going there, and after mutual protestations of "love between the pair, plaintiff
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)