Sanchez v. McMahon

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1868Published

Before: Crockett

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the judgment setting aside a power of attorney and a subsequent real estate contract as fraudulent, finding that the evidence supported the conclusion that the plaintiff did not understand the legal effect of the instruments. The court further held that the defendants were not entitled to a refund of payments made to the plaintiff's agent, as those payments were made to a confederate in the fraud and were not proven to have benefited the plaintiff.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in finding the power of attorney and subsequent contract fraudulent and void.
Whether the trial court erred in refusing to order a refund of payments made by the defendants to the plaintiff's agent.
Whether ex parte affidavits can be used to establish the trial court's findings on questions of fact.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the Court entered a judgment to the effect that the power of attorney was fraudulent and void, and ordering it to be canceled, and that the contract made under the power of attorney was also fraudulent and void from the beginning”

“ex parte affidavits cannot supply the want of findings. To tolerate such a practice would lead to endless perplexity and subvert the intent of the statute”

“Having paid this sum to their confederate in the fraud, they must look to him, if to any one, for the money.”

Synopsis

Statement for New Trial—Insufficiency of Evidence.—Where a statement on motion for a new trial fails to specify wherein the evidence is insufficient to justify the decision, such insufficiency as a ground of the motion will be disregarded.

Idem—Specification of Errors.—When errors of law occurring at the trial are relied upon as errors on appeal, the particular errors must be pointed out by counsel; otherwise they will be disregarded, unless they plainly appear from the transcript on appeal.

Error—What Material.—During the trial, by the Court without a jury, of an action to set aside a sale of lands to the defendants, on the grounds of fraud and gross inadequacy of the purchase price, the defendants were misled by an announcement from the bench concerning the sufficiency of the defendants' evidence on the latter point, whereby they were induced to omit the further introduction of evidence they had at command, which was pertinent to establish more fully the adequacy of the purchase price, the Court, by its decision, set aside the sale, but filed no findings of fact or opinion, and no exceptions were taken for want of findings: Held, that this furnished no ground for reversal on appeal, because the decision does not affirmatively appear to have been founded, in whole or in part, on said alleged inadequacy.

Idem.—In such ease, where a party wishes to put on record, for purposes of review, the decision of the Court on a matter of fact, the only mode is to request that written findings be filed, and on a failure or refusal to do so, to except for want of findings. Such decision by the Court on a matter of fact cannot be established by affidavit on motion for new trial.

Fraudulent Sale—Refunding Purchase Money.—If a sale of lands, made under a power of attorney procured through fraud, be set aside as fraudulent and void db initio, the fraudulent vendee is not entitled to a decree against the vendor for restitution of a part of the purchase money paid to the attorney who was privy to the fraud.

By the Court, Crockett, J.: This is a suit in equity to set aside a conveyance from the plaintiff to the defendants of valuable real estate, known as the “Rancho San Pedro,” situate in San Mateo County.

It appears that the plaintiff is a native Mexican woman, forty-seven years old, unable to read or write, or to speak any language except the Spanish, and is the widow of Francisco Sanchez, deceased, and the mother of nine children. It further appears that her husband, in his lifetime, conveyed this ranch to three trustees, on the following trusts, to wit : first—that they would allow her, during her natural lifetime, to receive for her own use, the rents, income, and profits from the entire ranch; second—that she should have the right to dispose absolutely of one half the ranch either by deed or will, and the trustees were to execute the necessary conveyances to carry her dispositions into effect; third —that on her death, the other one half of the ranch should be conveyed by the trustees to the children of the marriage, share and share alike.

It further appears that in February, 1864, the plaintiff leased the entire ranch, less three hundred and twenty acres, [221]to one Seavers, for five years, at an annual rent of five thousand dollars in gold coin, and Seavers is now in possession under the lease. It also appears that in August, 1864, the plaintiff and her son Pedro Sanchez entered into a written contract with the defendants, whereby they agreed to sell to the defendants six hundred acres from off the northern portion of the ranch for the sum of nine thousand dollars in gold coin, and agreed to procure to be made to the defendants a valid title in fee to said six hundred acres. It was also proved that in October, 1863, the plaintiff and one Luis Sanchez made a mortgage to one of the defendants on the entire ranch to secure the payment of four thousand two hundred and twenty-seven dollars in gold coin, in two years, with interest at the rate of one and one half per cent per month, which mortgage remained in force.

It further appears that in April, 1865, the plaintiff made a power of attorney to her son Pedro Sanchez, whereby, amongst other things, she empowered him to manage and control said rancho and “ to make to and with Owen McMahon (who is one of the defendants) any and all contracts or agreements to grant, bargain, sell, or incumber the same, in whole or in part, to him and his heirs and assigns, and said contracts and agreements to execute and carry out on , such terms as he may deem proper; and also to execute and carry out and settle any and all contracts or agreements which I and my said attorney, or myself individually, may have heretofore made with any person or persons touching or affecting said rancho or any part thereof; to assign and transfer any contract or agreement which I may have with any one touching said rancho; to make, execute, acknowledge, and deliver any and all deeds, conveyances, agreements, contracts, demands, assignments, transfers, and other instruments, under seal or otherwise, which he may deem proper.” To these are added a full power of substitution and revocation.

Sanchez v. McMahon

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief