Ackerman v. Schultz

Appeal—Time to Appeal from Judgment—Pendency of Proceedings for New Trial.—Prior to the amendment in 1915 of section 939 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the pendency of proceedings on a motion for a new trial did not extend the time to appeal from a judgment.

Claim and Delivery—Pleadings—Cross-complaint in Such Action— Question Precluded by Stipulation.—In an action in claim and delivery, an appellant who entered into a written stipulation with the other parties to the litigation, by which he acknowledged service of the summons and a copy of the cross-complaint, waived his right to demur thereto, and agreed that his answer to the plaintiff’s amended complaint might be deemed an answer to the cross-complaint, is precluded from raising the question of the permissibility of a cross-complaint in that form of action.

Id.—Findings Sustained by Evidence.—Evidence found on appeal to be sufficient to sustain findings of fraud and false representations.

Id.—Judgment Excessive in Amount—Reduction by Appellate Court. A judgment for a cross-complainant exceeding the amount alleged and prayed for in the cross-complaint' should be reduced to agree with the allegations and prayer of the cross-complaint.

Fraud—Fraudulent Representations—Liability.—In an action by a cross-complainant against several cross-defendants for fraud by which the cross-complainant was induced to purchase an automobile, the fact that the bill of sale was signed by only one of the cross-defendants, and that the record title did not purport to come from his codefendant, did not relieve the latter, who had asserted title in himself, from responsibility for his instrumentality in aiding in the purported transfer of title.

Id.—Fraudulent Transfer.—One not a creditor of a person making ^ transfer claimed t'o be fraudulent and void under section 3440 of the Civil Code, the transferrer not being a party to the action, is not in a position to invoke that statute.

Id.—Expenditures for Repairs.—In an action for damages for fraud by which one was induced to purchase an automobile, judgment was properly awarded for money expended or indebtedness incurred by the defrauded party for repairs to the property after transfer of its possession and before the discovery of the fraud.