Gustason v. California Trust Co.

73 F.2d 765, 1934 U.S. App. LEXIS 2807
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedNovember 19, 1934
DocketNo. 7352
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 73 F.2d 765 (Gustason v. California Trust Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Gustason v. California Trust Co., 73 F.2d 765, 1934 U.S. App. LEXIS 2807 (9th Cir. 1934).

Opinion

SAWTELLE, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing appellant’s complaint without leave to amend. The complaint alleges, substantially, lhafc in May, .1929, plaintiff entered into agreements of sale with the California Trust Company, defendant/appellee, pursuant to which California Trust Company agreed to sell and plaintiff agreed to buy certain real property situated in Los Angeles county, Cal., for a named price, payable in [766]*766five annual installments; that plaintiff was induced to execute the agreements of sale by reason of certain representations and statements made to him by the defendants, to the effect that the “unimpaired fee title to said premises was held by defendant California Trust Company and that defendants herein and their successors or assigns were then and would always be able to furnish plaintiff with a certificate or guarantee of title issued by a reputable title company, showing the fee title to said premises as vested in defendant California Trust Company free and clear of encumbrances at the date of the execution of such agreements”; “that said representations and statements and all of them were false and untrue, and were known by defendants herein to be false and untrue at the time same were made, but plaintiff was wholly unaware of the falsity thereof, believed the same and relied thereupon; that said representations were fraudulently, falsely and deceitfully made by the defendants herein, and said agreements were executed by defendant California Trust Company herein with knowledge of the falsity of said representations which were fraudulently, falsely and deceitfully made solely for the purpose of inducing plaintiff to enter into said agreements, and had plaintiff been aware of such falsity, fraud and deceit, he would not have executed said agreements.”

It is also alleged “that said premises are public domain of the United States of America; that the basic title to said premises now does, and forever will, prevent the existence of fee title to said premises in defendants, or any of them; that said premises are encumbered by homestead-entries filed in the District Land Office of the United States Department of the Interior, further preventing the conveyance by defendants herein of fee title to said premises,” as was well known by defendants.

Plaintiff then alleges “that on or about the month of November, 1932, he discovered the aforedeseribed fraud, deceit, and falsity thereof and promptly thereafter, to-wit: on or about November 10, 1932, executed a written notice of rescission, directed to and served upon defendants herein, by virtue of which plaintiff elected to and did rescind the aforedeseribed agreements, setting forth in said notice the grounds and reasons for said rescission, as hereinbefore set forth, and therein further stated that plaintiff was ready, able and willing to restore to defendants everything of value received by him on account of said agreements, including a good and sufficient quitclaim deed to said premises and cancellation of said agreements, and offered to tender and return, and did thereby offer and tender to return, everything of value so received by him, on condition that defendants do likewise and return to him $11,356.-40,” the moneys paid under the agreements of sale.

It is also alleged in the complaint “that the base, muniment and foundation of the claims of the said California Trust Company to the fee in said property” is a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, filed in said court on December 12, 1856. That judgment confirmed title to the property in question in one Ysidro Reyes (the predecessor in interest of California Trust Co.), as theretofore found and determined on April 4, 1854, by the “Board of Commissioners”, established by and acting in accordance with the Act of March 3, 1851, 9 Stat. 631, entitled “An Act to ascertain and settle the private Land Claims in the State of California.”

The complaint then alleges that said judgment of the United States District Court, confirming the title to the property as found by the Board of Commissioners, is void for the following reasons:

(1) The Board of Commissioners was without jurisdiction to hear and determine the cause;

(2) The decree of confirmation entered by the Board of Commissioners was rendered arbitrarily and without any evidence proving or tending to prove that said Reyes had acquired “any equity whatever in said lands, or any part thereof, under the laws of Spain or Mexico, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the Law of Nations, the Act of Congress approved March 3,1851, or the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States applicable thereto”;

(3) The proceedings before the Board of Commissioners docketed in the United States District Court conferred no jurisdiction upon said court to make any order or render any judgment therein;

(4) Because of extraneous frauds practiced by said Reyesi upon the United States, “and particularly upon the Deputy United States Surveyor who made the survey herein complained of”;

(5) Because of extrinsic frauds practiced upon the court by said Reyes “and by representatives of the United States, both and all of whom were in collusion and conspiracy to the end and purpose of deceiving and misleading the court asi to the facts in said cause”;

[767]*767(C) “The survey and patent issued by the United States on the 21st day of July, 1881, for the said land is void upon its face and is and at all times herein mentioned has been a fraud upon the court for the reason that it wholly failed to conform to the judgment and order of the court theretofore made” y

(7) “The judgment and decree of confirmation of December 12, 1856, the orders, processes, and decrees prior and subsequent thereto, the survey and patent issued as hereinabove stated, by and through which title in the United States was attempted to be divested, is a judgment void for want of entirety” ;

(8) “Tho survey and palent executed and issued by the Surveyor-General of the State of California, on the 21st day of July, 1881, covering the lands claimed by petitioner, is void upon its face for want of power and authority in the Surveyor-General of California to execute the same.”

The prayer of the complaint is for recovery of tho moneys paid by plaintiff under tlie agreements of sale and for cancellation of said agreements.

Demurrers interposed by the defendants Santa Monica Land & Water Company and defendant Pacific Land Corporation, Limited, were sustained “for the reason that this Court has no jurisdiction of this cause.”

The defendant California Trust Company moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds:

“1. That said complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action at law or in equity against defendant.

“2. That it does not appear from the allegations of said complaint that a Federal question is involved or that the Federal Court has, for any other reason, jurisdiction of the action.

“3. That it appears upon the face of said complaint that the cause of action, if any, therein alleged, is barred by the provisions of Subdivision 4 of Section 338 of the California Code of Civil Procedure.”

Without stating the ground of dismissal, a judgment of dismissal was entered, “dismissing the complaint without leave to further amend.”

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Geisert v. Corriveau
140 F. Supp. 29 (E.D. Michigan, 1956)
Circle Fisheries Co. v. Seabrooke
103 F. Supp. 734 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1952)
Phelps v. Hanson
163 F.2d 973 (Ninth Circuit, 1947)
Sanders v. Allen
58 F. Supp. 417 (S.D. California, 1944)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
73 F.2d 765, 1934 U.S. App. LEXIS 2807, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gustason-v-california-trust-co-ca9-1934.