La Salle v. Peterson

PRESTON, J.

Appeal by plaintiff from judgment for defendants entered on order sustaining, without leave to amend, their demurrer to plaintiff's amended complaint.

The action is one to set aside a judgment on grounds of fraud and conspiracy. Although the amended complaint is voluminous in detail, a brief statement should suffice to

[740]

show that the ruling of the court below was entirely correct, as the matters alleged do not pertain to extrinsic or collateral fraud, but purely to intrinsic fraud, which is not ground for setting aside a judgment.

Plaintiff sets forth the history of a controversy of years between these parties and alleges that as an outgrowth thereof defendants, motivated by hatred and revenge, conspired to prosecute against him a wholly false and fictitious action, to wit: Cause No. 300,042 in the Los Angeles County superior court, wherein the above-named defendant Ole Peterson was plaintiff and this plaintiff was one of the defendants and said Peterson had judgment against plaintiff for $2,700 and costs. It is further alleged that said judgment was procured on the false and fraudulent testimony of said Peterson that he was employed by plaintiff to work in a packing plant and worked there for about two years without receiving any wages; that, as defendants well knew, during practically that entire period the packing plant was closed and said Peterson was employed by another company; that defendants, by their false and fraudulent acts, prevented plaintiff from learning the true facts to present them to the court and from having a fair trial but, if granted the opportunity of a new trial, plaintiff will be able to show conclusively that he is in no way liable to said Peterson and that said judgment resulted solely from said conspiracy and perjured testimony. As above stated, it is unnecessary to set forth the averments of said pleading with greater particularity as it is clear they are but allegations of intrinsic fraud, affording no basis for the relief here sought.

It has long been the rule that a judgment will not be vacated because it was obtained by false or perjured testimony

(Pico

v.