Hayden v. Hayden
Before: Belcher
Synopsis
Amendments to Pleadings.—Courts should be. liberal in allowing amendments to pleadings, to the end that cases may be fully and fairly presented upon their merits. Motions to amend are not, however, to be granted as matter of course, but only when good cause is shown therefor.
When Suit in Equity is not Stale.—If a judgment removing an alleged cloud on title to real estate is obtained by fraudulent practices, and the defendants do not reside in the State, they may maintain an action to set aside the judgment and have their title to the land established within three years after their discovery of the 'facts constituting their cause of action, and the case is not stale because twelve years may have elapsed before suit was commenced.
Equity will Grant Relief Against Fraudulent Judgment.—If one dies seized of real estate, leaving children in another State, and an interest in the real estate descends to the children, and the children are ignorant of their right to the property, and the widow of the deceased informs the children that the deceased left no property, and at the same time, by fraudulent practices, obtains a judgment against them decreeing that they have no interest in the land, and enjoining them from setting up any title thereto, a Court of equity will grant relief by setting aside the judgment and establishing the children’s right to the property, and such relief will be granted as against parties who purchased the property from the widow with notice.
Judgment Valid on its Face.—If a judgment on the face of the roll appears to be valid, those who purchase property on the faith of it are protected, even if it was procured by fraudulent practice, if they had no actual notice of such fraudulent practices.
By the Court, Belcher, J.: This action was commenced in April, 1868, to set aside a judgment rendered in favor of the defendant, Jane Leonora [336]Hayden, and against the plaintiffs, in June, 1861, and to establish the right of the plaintiffs as the heirs at law of one David Hayden to an interest in about seventy acres of land in the Western Addition to the City of San Francisco. In May, 1869, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, to which the defendants, of whom there are about two hundred, answered. On the 10th of January, 1871, the case, being then reached in its order on the calendar for trial, by the consent of the attorneys for the plaintiffs and defendants expressed, in open Court, was set down for trial on the tenth day of April then next. On the 11th of March, 1871, the attorney for the plaintiffs served upon the attorneys for the defendants a notice that he would move the Court for leave-to amend the complaint, and with it he served a copy of the complaint as proposed to be amended, and an affidavit made by himself, setting forth, among other things, “that since the bringing of said action and the arguments of the demurrers to the defendants’ answers filed therein, and from a fuller acquaintance with the facts of said case, acquired since said arguments, and in consequence of the death of a principal witness, upon whom the plaintiffs relied to prove said case in its present form, this affiant has become convinced that it is expedient and advisable for plaintiffs to amend their complaint herein in the manner and to the extent set forth and shown in the amended complaint hereto annexed.” The motion to amend was thereafter heard upon the affidavit of the plaintiffs’ attorney and affidavits filed by the defendants’ attorneys, and denied. Afterwards, on the eighteenth of April, the case being called for trial, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint and for judgment, on the ground: “First-, that said complaint does not set up any equity, nor does it state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; second, that the claim of said plaintiffs therein set forth is stale, among other reasons, because it is not averred when, [337]where, or how the alleged discovery of the supposed fraud was made.”
The Court granted the motion and dismissed the action, and the plaintiffs have appealed.
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)