Cota v. Jones
Before: McKee
Synopsis
Superior Court’s Jurisdiction—Breach of Confidence.—The constitution clothes the superior courts with jurisdiction of all cases where breach of confidence is shown.
Fraud.—In a Suit by a Cestui Que Trust Against a Trustee, a complaint that sets out fraud and asks accordingly for a restoration of property as the relief states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
Estates of Decedents.—A Conveyance Fraudulently Obtained, in deference to which the probate court has distributed the grantor’s share of the estate to- the grantee, does not estop the grantor, proceeding without undue delay, to sue for a restoration, setting out the fraud in his complaint.
Fraud—Laches—Limitation of Actions.—There is no stale claim disclosed and the statute of limitations is no bar, if a plaintiff, in an action for relief from a fraud practiced upon her, discovered the fraud only within two months of bringing suit.
Fraud—Laches—Discovery by Counsel.—In a complaint setting out fraud and objected to as revealing delay in bringing the action, it is sufficient to refer to investigation by counsel as the means whereby the fraud was unearthed, when the plaintiff is unused to business, ignorant, and unacquainted with the language.
McKEE, J. After sustaining a demurrer to the complaint in this action, the court below dismissed the action, and from the judgment of dismissal comes this appeal.
Substantially, the complaint shows that the plaintiff and defendant Ramona Jones are sisters, and two of eight heirs at law of Juana Lugardo Malo, deceased; that the defendant D. W. Ap Jones is the husband of his codefendant Ramona, brother in law of the plaintiff, and administrator of the estate of the deceased Juana Lugardo; that the plaintiff, as an heir at law of the deceased, and entitled to an undivided one-eighth interest of the estate, was wholly ignorant of the condition of the estate, and of the value of her interest therein; and, being [132]ignorant, she placed implicit confidence in the defendants, and relied solely upon the representations which they made to her upon the subjects; that, for the purpose of cheating and defrauding her out of her share of the real and personal property of the deceased, they falsely and fraudulently represented to her that it was of little value, until they induced her to transfer her entire interest in the estate of her sister Ramona, through the medium of one Huse, to whom, at the request and under the direction of the defendants, she executed a conveyance of her interest, expressing a consideration of fifteen hundred dollars, and delivered it to the defendant, D. W. Ap Jones; that Huse, who paid no part of the consideration money, and to whom the conveyance was made but not delivered, executed and delivered to the defendants, pursuant to the arrangement and understanding between him and them, a conveyance of the property; and by virtue of the conveyances thus fraudulently obtained, the defendant claimed and received, on a distribution of the estate among the heirs at law, the full share of the plaintiff in the real and personal property of the estate, in value amounting to eight thousand dollars; that the defendants have been, since the date of the conveyance to Huse, in possession of her estate in the real property, which consists of two ranches, known as the Santa Rita and Purissima ranches in Santa Barbara county, taking to themselves the rents and profits of the same; that she has always been ignorant of the fraudulent practices by which the defendants obtained from her the conveyance of her property, until they were brought to her knowledge by the investigations of counsel, about two months before the commencement of the action. And she asks that the transaction be investigated, that the defendants be declared her trustees of all the.real estate obtained by them under the fraudulent conveyances, and that they be compelled to convey the same back to her.
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)