Harpke v. Lankershim Estate

Decision Date08 December 1950
Citation101 Cal.App.2d 49,224 P.2d 899
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
PartiesHARPKE v. LANKERSHIM ESTATE et al. Civ. 17981.

William S. Palmese and Jesse A. Levinson, Los Angeles, Jesse A. Levinson, Los Angeles, for appellant.

Hulen C. Callaway and Tripp & Callaway, all of Los Angeles, for respondents.

MOORE, Presiding Justice.

This appeal is from a judgment entered pursuant to the order made upon the sustaining of respondents' demurrer to appellant's complaint. The action is one in equity to set aside a judgment for costs and disbursements awarded respondents in a previous suit wherein plaintiff was nonsuited. The basis of the instant action is the allegation that respondents committed a fraud upon appellant in the former case by the declaraton in the cost bill that $159.25 in costs and disbursements had been incurred by the respondents whereas in fact the latters' insurer had paid such expenses, as it alone had appeared to defend.

It is a doctrine of wide renown that equity will not set aside a judgment on the ground of fraud unless such fraud is of the extrinsic variety. Westphal v. Westphal, 20 Cal.2d 393, 397, 126 P.2d 105; Horton v. Horton, 18 Cal.2d 579, 584, 116 P.2d 605. Fraud of this nature is present only when some act of the successful party has served to deprive his adversary of the opportunity to present his case to the court. U. S. v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61, 66, 25 L.Ed. 93; Westphal, supra, 20 Cal.2d at page 397, 126 P.2d 105. Such fraud has not been alleged herein and it is doubtful that fraud of any kind existed.

The record herein discloses that prior to the commencement of this action appellant made a motion to strike such cost bill and that the motion was denied. No appeal was taken although such an order is appealable, Code Civ.Proc. sec. 963, as one made after final judgment. See LeCyr v. Dow, 26 Cal.App.2d 459, 460, 79 P.2d 777; Kellogg v. Honcutt Gold Mines Company, Ltd., 25 Cal.App.2d 109, 76 P.2d 551; Markart v. Zeimer, 74 Cal.App. 152, 155-156, 239 P. 856. It is elemental that a court of equity will not grant relief where a party has not exhausted his legal remedies available in the action in which the judgment was rendered. Harris v. Harris, 10 Cal.App.2d 734, 737, 52 P.2d 985, 54 P.2d 459; Doran v. Sherman, 18 Cal.App.2d 479, 480, 64 P.2d 442.

Judgment affirmed.

McCOMB and WILSON, JJ., concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Perry v. Zabriskie
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • November 16, 1966
    ...plaintiffs' failure to appeal from the original judgment although time to do so still remained; at least one case, Harpke v. Lankershim Estate, 101 Cal.App.2d 49, 224 P.2d 899, so holds upon the theory that the moving party has not exhausted the legal remedies available to him. In Hallett, ......
  • Muller v. Reagh
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • January 30, 1957
    ...934; Doran v. Sherman, 18 Cal.App.2d 479, 64 P.2d 442; Hosner v. Skelly, 72 Cal.App.2d 457, 461, 164 P.2d 573; Harpke v. Lankershim Estate, 101 Cal.App.2d 49, 224 P.2d 899. Plaintiff further alleges in the first count that Lelah Muller has waived any rights accruing to her from the March 11......
  • Bernstein v. Cunningham
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • December 16, 1959
    ...September 19th. No other notice of appeal was given. The order of June 24th was appealable. (Code Civ.Proc. § 963; Harpke v. Lankershim Estate, 101 Cal.App.2d 49, 224 P.2d 899; Markart v. Zeimer, 74 Cal.App. 152, 239 P. 856. The time for appeal expired 60 days after that date. That purporte......
  • Myers v. Washington
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • January 14, 1963
    ...not exhausted his legal remedies available in the action in which the judgment was rendered. [citing cases]' (Harpke v. Lankershim Estate, 101 Cal.App.2d 49, 50, 224 P.2d 899, 900.) The third case furnishes an even weaker defense for the order an appeal. To be true, in it the point was rais......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT