People v. Blankenship
THE PEOPLE v. ZACHARIAH T. BLANKENSHIP
- Area
- criminal
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
By the Court :
This is an action to cancel a patent, issued by the State, for the south half of section sixteen, in township twenty-one south, of range twenty-five east, of Mount Diablo meridian, on the ground that the same was procured to be issued by the fraudulent acts of certain of the defendants, of which acts the patentee had notice at the time when both the certificate of purchase and patent were issued. The action is “an action for relief on the ground of fraud ” within the meaning of sub. 4 of sec. 368, Code of Civil Procedure. That section provides that such action must be commenced within three years after the cause of action accrued; and that it shall not be deemed to have accrued until the discovery, by the aggrieved party, of the facts constituting the fraud. The patent was issued in May, 1873; the action was commenced in December, 1876 ; and it is not expressly averred in the complaint, nor are any facts therein stated which show that the plaintiff did not discover the facts constituting the fraud until within three years before the commencement of the action. When the acts constituting the fraud occurred more than three years before the commencement of the action, the plaintiff must allege a discovery thereof within three years in order to avoid the bar of the statute. The demurrer to the ’complaint, on the ground that the action was barred by the fourth subdivision of sec. 338, should have been sustained.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded, with directions to sustain the demurrer to the complaint.
Cited by
- Calkins v. Calkins Civ. No. 2627. · 1923-07-28
- People v. Kings County Development Co. Sac. No. 2372. · 1918-02-18
- Lillis v. Silver Creek & Panoche Land & Water Co. Civ. No. 1051. · 1913-02-19
- Unkel v. Robinson L.A. No. 2899. · 1912-08-28
- State Ex Rel. Colgan v. Campbell Civ. No. 175. · 1906-05-15
- Murphy v. Crowley S.F. No. 2481. · 1903-09-04
- Murphy v. Crowley S. F. No. 2481 · 1902-12-08
- Goodnow v. Parker No. 18340 · 1896-04-16
- Castro v. Geil No. 15820 · 1895-12-06
- People ex rel. Eadie v. Noyo Lumber Co. No. 15110 · 1893-09-01
- Watkins v. Bryant No. 14288 · 1891-10-03
- Smith v. Irving No. 11,644 · 1889-08-30
- Duff v. Duff No. 9681 · 1886-12-31