Gibbons v. Peralta
Before: Cope
Synopsis
A decree pronouncing that a conveyance is fraudulent and void has the effect to remove any cloud resulting from its execution without an express direction that it be set aside.
Some two hundred persons, of whom plaintiff was .one, claimed each separate parts of a tract of land called the “ Encinal,” deriving their several titles from a common source, and all through a deed of the whole tract from Peralta to Hays. Plaintiff brought the action for himself and on behalf of the others, whose titles were similarly situated, for the purpose of obtaining equitable relief against certain subsequent conveyances of the Encinal made by Peralta, alleged to be fraudulent, and to constitute a cloud upon the title derived through the deed to Hays, and asked, as a portion of the relief, a perpetual injunction against any further alienations by the fraudulent grantees (defendants). The decree pronounced the subsequent conveyances fraudulent and void, and granted the injunction asked as to the plaintiff's separate portion of the land, but not as to that of the others for whom he sued: Held, on appeal by plaintiff from this decree, that it was not in this respect erroneous— that there was no such community of interest between the plaintiff and those whom he represented in the action as entitled him to an injunction in their favor.
Cope, J. delivered the opinion of the Court Field, C. J. concurring.
The plaintiff sues on behalf of himself and others, residents and property holders of the city of Oakland, to set aside certain conveyances operating as a cloud upon the title to the tract of land occupied by the city, and to obtain an injunction, etc. The Court below entered a judgment declaring the conveyances fraudulent and void, and enjoining the defendants from future alienations in respect to the land of the plaintiff, the relief in this particular being confined to the plaintiff alone. The plaintiff appeals, and contends that the judgment is not such as the pleadings and the evidence in the case entitled him to.
He objects that the conveyances are not expressly set aside; but [633]the judgment determines their invalidity, and the effect is to remove the cloud resulting from them execution. We are of opinion, therefore, that the objection is not weE taken, and that the judgment secures to the parties concerned aE the plaintiff asks in respect to the conveyances.
The only further objection is that the injunction is limited in its operation to the land of the plaintiff, and we regard this objection as untenable also. So far as this branch of the case is concerned, it is sufficient to say, generally, that there is no such community of interest between the plaintiff and those whom he represents in the action as entitles him to an injunction in then’ favor.
We adhere to the judgment of affirmance previously entered.
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)