Newport v. Hatton
195 Cal. 132 ·
Supreme Court of California · Filed
Published · citable
Cited by 3
Holding
The court held that a judgment obtained through collusive litigation, where the same attorney controlled both sides of a quiet title action against infant remaindermen, constituted extrinsic fraud and was therefore void; further, the statute of limitations did not bar the remaindermen's action to set aside the fraudulent judgment and quiet title because their right to possession had not yet accrued and the life tenant's possession could not be adverse to their future interests.
Statutes construed
- CCP § 338
- CIV § 741
- CIV § 840
Cited by (3)
- FREDERICK C. BEYL et al., Respondents, v. BERNARD D. ROBINSON, as Executor, etc., Appellant (1960) 179 Cal. App. 444
- LEWIS EARL ROUSE, Individually and as Administrator, etc., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. NORVELL B. UNDERWOOD et al., Defendants and Respondents (1966) 242 Cal. App. 2d 316
- Estate of THEODORE SCARBOROUGH PETERSEN, JR., Deceased; PHILIP H. ANGELL, as Trustee, etc., Petitioner, v. PAUL PETERSEN, a Minor, etc., Objector and Appellant; THEODORE SCARBOROUGH PETERSEN III, a Minor, etc., et al., Claimants and Respondents (1969) 270 Cal. App. 2d 89