Ashton v. Heydenfeldt

California Supreme Court Mar 10, 1899 No. S. F. No. 1266Published

Before: Haynes

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A party who receives property under a judgment that is subsequently reversed is legally obligated to make restitution to the other party for what was lost, and an action in equity may be maintained to recover such property or its value.

Issues

Whether a complaint states a cause of action for the recovery of property distributed under a judgment that was subsequently reversed on appeal.
Whether the superior court is required to plead jurisdictional facts regarding the supreme court's authority to reverse a decree of distribution.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“On the reversal of the judgment, the law raises an obligation in the party to the record, who has received the benefit of the erroneous judgment, to make restitution to the other party for what he has lost.”

“Viewed as an action to recover property, or its value, from a party who received it under a judgment afterward reversed, the complaint is not obnoxious to either of the grounds of,special demurrer interposed by respondents.”

Synopsis

Action to Recover Shares of Stock—Claim and Delivery—Pleading. An action of claim and delivery will not lie to recover shares of stock in a corporation, where the proceeding is not aimed at the certificate representing the shares, and it is not mentioned or described in the complaint. “Stock” in a corporation is an j incorporeal, intangible thing, not capable of identification or t seizure under the writ, in such an action.

Id.—Conversion—Demand and Refusal.—A complaint averring merely a demand and refusal, without alleging a conversion of the stock, is not sufficient as a complaint for its conversion.

Id.—Restitution of Stock Distributed under Reversed- Decree—Sufficiency of Complaint. — A complaint showing that the stock sought to be recovered by the plaintiffs as executors of the will of a decedent, was the property of the decedent, and was distributed to one of the defendants under a decree of distribution of the estate which was afterward reversed upon appeal, and that the sitock was transferred to a codefendant without valuable consideration, and averring a demand upon the defendants for the return of the stock, and their refusal to return the same, states a cause of action in equity for restitution of the stock distributed under the reversed decree, or the payment of its value.

Id.—Effect of Reversal of Decree—Right to Restitution.—Upon reversal of a decree under the enforcement of which property has been delivered, the matter stands as if no decree had ever been made, and the parties entitled to its possession, if no decree had been made, are entitled to restitution thereof.

Id.—Equity Jurisdiction—Enforcement of Delivery—Compensation. The suit being in equity to enforce the restitution of the property, after reversal of the erroneous decree, the superior court has power to compel the delivery of the property received by the defendanit undeir the decree, even though it be of a character such that it cannot be seized under a writ of replevin; or if it is no longer in the possession or control of the defendants, the court may compel compensation in money.

Id.—Pleading—Appellate Jurisdiction—Construction op Code—Presumption.—Section 456 of the Code of Civil Procedure relating to the pleading of judgments, refers to that class of judgments which, prior to its enactment, were required to be pleaded by setting out the jurisdictional facts, and not to judgments of courts of superior or general jurisdiction that are presumed to act by right and within the authority conferred upon them by law; and a complaint alleging the reversal of a judgment by the supreme court upon appeal, of which it had appellate jurisdiction, need not show that it had such jurisdiction, nor aver anything whatever to show its jurisdiction, v,

HAYNES, C. Action to recover possession of “shares of stock.” Defendants’ demurrer to the complaint was sustained, and, plaintiffs having declined to amend, judgment of dismissal was entered, and plaintiffs appeal.

The property sought to be recovered is described thus: “Four thousand six hundred and seventy-four shares of the capital stock of the Zeila Mining Company, a California corporation,” which stock, it is alleged, was the property of said Solomon Heydenfeldt at the time of his death, and ever since has been the property of his estate; that on October 23, 1893, the superior court made a final decree of distribution of said estate, “that pursuant to said decree said stock was distributed to the defendant Elizabeth A. Heydenfeldt, and was thereafter by her transferred, as plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege, without any valuable consideration to the defendant Sunshine 0. Heydenfeldt, and said stock has ever since been detained by them from the possession of plaintiffs.”

[16]It is further alleged “that said decree of distribution was reversed by the supreme court of the state of California, and the matter of said distribution remanded to this honorable court for further hearing”; that no further hearing has taken place; that both the defendants were parties to the proceedings and had notice thereof; that charges and expenses to a large amount have accrued against said estate, which are unpaid; “that since the reversal of said decree plaintiffs have demanded of defendants the return of said stock, but they did then refuse, and have ever since then refused, and do now refuse to return said stock or any part thereof.” The value of the stock is alleged to be thirty thousand dollars, and damages for its detention four thousand dollars. The prayer is for judgment for the return of the stock, or, if that cannot be had, then for its value, and for damages.

If the complaint is to be regarded as though the action were in claim and delivery, it does not state a cause of action, inasmuch as “stock” in a corporation is an incorporeal, intangible thing, and therefore incapable of identification, or seizure under the writ. The proceeding is not aimed at the certificate representing these shares, nor is it mentioned or described.

Eor is it sufficient as a complaint for the conversion of the stock, since a conversion is not alleged. The allegation of a demand and refusal is not sufficient as an allegation of conversion, since “the demand and refusal is only evidence of a prior conversion, not in itself conclusive, but liable to be explained and rebutted by evidence to the contrary.” (2 Greenleaf on Evidence, sec. 644.) And in Mires v. Solebay, 2 Mod. 244, it was said: “It is not found that the servant did convert the sheep to his own use, for the special verdict only finds the demand and the refusal, which is no conversion; and though it is evidence of it to the jury, yet it is not matter upon which the court can give judgment of conversion.”

Ashton v. Heydenfeldt

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief