Archer v. Freeman
Before: McFarland
Synopsis
Fraud—Action for Damages—Statute of Limitations—Discovery— Means of Knowledge.—An action for damages for fraudulent representations made with respect to lands purchased by the plaintiff from the defendant is barred within three years after the plaintiff discovered or had the means of knowledge of the alleged fraud, and was put upon inquiry concerning the same.
Id.—Misrepresentations—Building of College—Donation—Laches— Running of Statute.—Where the fraud complained of consisted of misrepresentations as to the immediate building of a college, and as to a donation of one hundred thousand dollars made by the defendant for that purpose, and the plaintiff, as a man of reasonable caution and observation, ought to have known that the representations were false, and that the least inquiry would , have shown their falsity, the failure to make such inquiry is laches, and the statute of limitations begins to run when the fraud ought reasonably to have been discovered by proper inquiry.
Id.—Assignment—Right of Action for Fraud.—A mere assignment of a pure naked right to bring an action for fraud, unconnected with any property or thing which had itself a legal existence and value, independent of the right to sue for fraud, is void. A mere right to complain of fraud is not assignable.
McFARLAND, J. This action is brought to recover damages alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff through certain [529]alleged, misrepresentations made by defendants with respect to certain lands at Inglewood, in Los Angeles county, purchased by plaintiff from defendants. There is also a second count in the complaint for damages alleged to have been sustained by one Thompson under conditions similar to those stated in the first cause of action, it being averred that Thompson assigned his cause of action to plaintiff. After plaintiff had introduced all bis evidence and rested, the defendants moved for a nonsuit, which was granted. Judgment was rendered for defendants, and plaintiff appeals from the judgment upon the judgment-roll and a bill of exceptions. In their answer the defendants denied the material averments of the complaint, and also set up the statute of limitations and laches on the part of the plaintiff.
The motion for a nonsuit was based upofi numerous grounds, among others the statute of limitations and laches; and from the opinion of the court below, which is attached to the brief of respondents, it appears that the court granted the nonsuit mainly upon the two grounds last above stated. If the nonsuit was properly granted upon those grounds, it is not necessary to critically examine the other points made in the case. And we think that the court correctly granted the nonsuit upon the 'grounds aforesaid.
The plaintiff commenced negotiations for the purchase of the land in question in November, 1887, and the transaction was completed in January, 1888, at which time he paid the purchase money and received a deed of conveyance of the land. This action was commenced June 25, 1894, which was between six and a half and seven years after the alleged fraudulent misrepresentations and promises which are alleged to have been made and given at the time of the purchase. Therefore the statute of limitations had run more than twice from the time of the.alleged frauds until the filing of the complaint, unless under section 338 of the Code of Civil Procedure there was no discovery by plaintiff of the facts constituting the alleged frauds until within three years next preceding the commencement of the action. However,,it is the clearly established law that in such a case a party must be held to have had knowledge of the alleged fraud whenever the means of knowledge existed and the circumstances were such as to put him on inquiry (Moore v. Boyd, 74 [530]
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)