Firac Case
CASE 1 of 5
Donnelly v. Rees 141 Cal. 56, Cal. 1903. November 6, 1903
FACTS: An action may be maintained by the sole heir of a deceased person to set aside a deed procured from the deceased without consideration by the fraudulent practices of the defendants and their undue influence over the deceased, who was known to be an habitual drunkard for more than five years before the execution of the deed, to anextent seriously to impair his mind, and who was so intoxicated at the time as to render him unfit to transact business, and entirely incapable of realizing, understanding, or attending to the transaction.
ISSUE: The plaintiff was not required to make any payments on account of an alleged bill against the grantor, or for moneys alleged to have been advanced to him subsequently to the alleged transaction, where these matters cannot be regarded as connected with the transaction.
RULE: This was admissible in evidence (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1853) (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1963, subd. 5.)On the facts found, the case comes within several of the provisions of section 2224 of the Civil Code, which, in view of other questions involved in the case, it may be important to distinguish: (1) The defendants gained the land by "fraud" --i. e. by actual fraud,--and also (2) by "undue influence," and are therefore--or, rather, each is "aninvoluntary trustee of the thing gained"; and (3) the same result follows, because they gained the thing by "the violation of a trust."
APPLY: (Civ. Code, sec. 2219; Pierce v. Robinson, 13 Cal. 127; Kimball v. Tripp, 136 Cal. 634, 635; Knight v. Tripp, 121 Cal. 674; Davies v. Otty, 35 Beav. 213.)
CONCLUSION: It was not necessary that the plaintiff should pay to the defendants the amount of their alleged bill, or to O'Brien the amounts alleged to have been advanced to Kean subsequently to the transaction; or that the court should so adjudge under the findings--which we have held to be sustained by the evidence.
CASE 2 of 5
Guidici v. Guidici, 2
Donnelly v. Rees 141 Cal. 56, Cal. 1903. November 6, 1903
FACTS: An action may be maintained by the sole heir of a deceased person to set aside a deed procured from the deceased without consideration by the fraudulent practices of the defendants and their undue influence over the deceased, who was known to be an habitual drunkard for more than five years before the execution of the deed, to anextent seriously to impair his mind, and who was so intoxicated at the time as to render him unfit to transact business, and entirely incapable of realizing, understanding, or attending to the transaction.
ISSUE: The plaintiff was not required to make any payments on account of an alleged bill against the grantor, or for moneys alleged to have been advanced to him subsequently to the alleged transaction, where these matters cannot be regarded as connected with the transaction.
RULE: This was admissible in evidence (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1853) (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1963, subd. 5.)On the facts found, the case comes within several of the provisions of section 2224 of the Civil Code, which, in view of other questions involved in the case, it may be important to distinguish: (1) The defendants gained the land by "fraud" --i. e. by actual fraud,--and also (2) by "undue influence," and are therefore--or, rather, each is "aninvoluntary trustee of the thing gained"; and (3) the same result follows, because they gained the thing by "the violation of a trust."
APPLY: (Civ. Code, sec. 2219; Pierce v. Robinson, 13 Cal. 127; Kimball v. Tripp, 136 Cal. 634, 635; Knight v. Tripp, 121 Cal. 674; Davies v. Otty, 35 Beav. 213.)
CONCLUSION: It was not necessary that the plaintiff should pay to the defendants the amount of their alleged bill, or to O'Brien the amounts alleged to have been advanced to Kean subsequently to the transaction; or that the court should so adjudge under the findings--which we have held to be sustained by the evidence.
CASE 2 of 5
Guidici v. Guidici, 2