Hecht v. Slaney (1887) · DecisionDepot

Hecht v. Slaney

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court May 28, 1887 No. No. 11908Published

Before: Belcher

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that an action to enforce a constructive trust based on alleged fraud in insolvency proceedings is barred by the statute of limitations when the facts underlying the fraud were matters of public record and discoverable with reasonable diligence.

Issues

Was the plaintiff's action to enforce a constructive trust barred by the statute of limitations?
Does the statute of limitations run in favor of a defendant chargeable as a trustee of an implied trust without a formal repudiation of the trust?
Does ignorance of fraud excuse laches when the facts are matters of public record?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“it is now well settled that the statute of limitations runs in favor of a defendant chargeable as a trustee of an implied trust”

“the rule in such cases is, that a party is presumed to know whatever he might, with reasonable diligence, have discovered”

“when the fundamental facts upon which the alleged frauds rest are matters of public record, open to his inspection, ignorance of the fraud will not excuse his laches, nor stay the running of the statute.”

Synopsis

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

Belcher, C. C. This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment entered against him, after demurrer sustained to his complaint.

The facts set forth in the complaint may be briefly stated as follows:—

[364]On the seventeenth day of May, 1879, S. W. Levy recovered a judgment in the District Court of the twenty-third judicial district of this state against the defendant, William Slaney, for the sum of $2,296.17, and $32.20 costs.

On the 10th of May, 1884, Levy assigned the judgment to the plaintiff, and no part of it has ever been paid.

On the 24th of July, 1879, Slaney filed a petition in • insolvency in the County Court of Los Angeles County, and on the same day.an order was made staying all proceedings against him, which order remained in full force till the 28tli of February, 1882.

On the 30th of August, 1879, H. M. Mitchell, sheriff of Los Angeles County, was appointed assignee of the estate of Slaney, and received the usual assignment; and he continued to act as such assignee until he was discharged on the 28th of February, 1882.

On the 25th of February, 1879, Slaney was the owner of certain real property in the city of Los Angeles, and filed a declaration of homestead thereon.

On the 17th of September, 1879, he filed a petition in the County Court, where his insolvency proceedings were pending, asking that the property, on which he had filed his declaration of homestead, be exempted and set apart to -him. The petition represented that the property had been duly selected as a homestead, and was exempt from execution; and without any notice of the filing of the petition, or of the time set'for the hearing thereof, the property was, by an order of court made on the 24th of January, 1880, set aside to him as a homestead.

It is then alleged that the representations in the petition were false; that the property was then worth at least ten thousand dollars, and was not subject to be claimed as a homestead, because at the time of its selection and up to the time when it was set aside, it was used almost wholly for business purposes-

[365]

Hecht v. Slaney

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief