Elliott v. Wohlfrom
Citations
- 55 Cal. 384
Syllabus
<p>Divorce — Fraudulent Judgment — Appearance — Estoppel — Common Property.—In an action of ejectment, in which both parties deraigned title under a deed executed May 15th, 1865, for valuable consideration, to one Amanda C., the defendant by a deed direct from her, and the plaintiff by a deed from J. C.—formerly her husband—the case turned upon the validity of a judgment of divorce rendered J une 23rd, 1864, in a case brought by J. G. against Amanda C., in the State of Indiana, in which the latter appeared by attorney; but it appeared that the appearance of the attorney was without her knowledge or- consent. Held, that the judgment was not void, but, at most, only voidable at her instance, and that it could not be attacked by her husband or his grantee.</p> <p>Id.—Ebaud.—Eraud renders any transaction void at the election of the party defrauded; but the party by whom the fraud is perpetrated has not that election.</p>
Judges: Sharpstein
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
7 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Estate of DavisCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1940-04-24· cited 56×
- Hollingshead v. HollingsheadNew Jersey Court of Chancery· 1920-02-27· cited 39×
- Ainscow v. AlexanderDelaware Orphan's Court· 1944-08-22· cited 27×
- In Re Anderson's EstateMontana Supreme Court· 1948-05-26· cited 14×
- Estate of PaulCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1946-12-23· cited 2×
- Ridec LLC v. HinkleCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2023-06-29
- Ridec LLC v. HinkleCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2023-07-27
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.