People v. Blankenship

52 Cal. 619
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1878
DocketNo. 5824
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 52 Cal. 619 (People v. Blankenship) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People v. Blankenship, 52 Cal. 619 (Cal. 1878).

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.

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

Related

Calkins v. Calkins
218 P. 611 (California Court of Appeal, 1923)
People v. Kings County Development Co.
171 P. 102 (California Supreme Court, 1918)
Lillis v. Silver Creek & Panoche Land & Water Co.
131 P. 344 (California Court of Appeal, 1913)
Unkel v. Robinson
126 P. 485 (California Supreme Court, 1912)
State Ex Rel. Colgan v. Campbell
86 P. 840 (California Court of Appeal, 1906)
Murphy v. Crowley
73 P. 820 (California Supreme Court, 1903)
Goodnow v. Parker
44 P. 738 (California Supreme Court, 1896)
Castro v. Geil
42 P. 804 (California Supreme Court, 1895)
Morgan v. Morgan
38 P. 1054 (Washington Supreme Court, 1894)
People ex rel. Eadie v. Noyo Lumber Co.
34 P. 96 (California Supreme Court, 1893)
Watkins v. Bryant
27 P. 775 (California Supreme Court, 1891)
Smith v. Irving
22 P. 170 (California Supreme Court, 1889)
Duff v. Duff
12 P. 570 (California Supreme Court, 1886)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
52 Cal. 619, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-blankenship-cal-1878.