Vitoreno

Vitoreno v. Corea

Good Law
1891 Cal. LEXIS 1168·92 Cal. 69·28 P. 95
Supreme Court of CaliforniaNovember 25, 1891No. 14161California640 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Sharpstein, J.

This is an action to recover the pos~ session of personarJ property. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of the~ laintiff. Defendant moved for a new trial, upon a state rient. The motion was denied, and defendant appeals porn the judgment, and order denying his motion for a n ~w trial.

The statement ~hows that after the jury had been sworn, the plaintiff's attorney stated the issue and his case as follows: -

Mr. McElrath, attorney for defendant, said: “Upon the opening statement of Mr. Chase, we move that he be nonsuited. If Mr. Chase’s statement is correct, it is that the defendant’s brother went to the plaintiff and informed the plaintiff that a man by the name of Williams, and who was a creditor of the plaintiff, was going to attach him, and the plaintiff, for the purpose of hindering, defrauding, and swindling this creditor, transferred his property to the defendant. Of course, I don’t admit such are the facts. I say, upon the plaintiff’s own statement, if those are the facts, the doors of this court-house are closed against him, and he is not entitled to come in here; he is in that condition of fraud that he does not come into court with clean hands. I refer your honor to…

Concurring Opinion

Haven, J.

I concur in the judgment. The evidence upon the trial was such as to bring the case fairly within the rule laid down in Bump on Fraudulent Conveyances, 441, 442.

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.