Telfair v. Greyhound Corp.
Decision Date | 03 August 1965 |
Docket Number | No. 9594,9594 |
Parties | Gloria TELFAIR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GREYHOUND CORPORATION, Defendant-Respondent. |
Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
James D. McTaggart, Boise, for appellant.
Moffatt, Thomas, Barrett & Blanton, Boise, for respondent.
Appellant commenced this action July 15, 1964, to set aside the judgment entered in the original action between these parties. The facts of this case are recited in Case No. 9529, Idaho, 404 P.2d 872, between the same parties. Appellant brought this action under I.R.C.P. 60(b), the last sentence of which is as follows:
'This rule does not limit the power of a court to entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a judgment, order or proceeding, or to set aside, as provided by law, within one year after judgment was entered, a judgment obtained against a party who was not personally served with summons and complaint either in the state of Idaho or in any other jurisdiction, and who has failed to appear in said action, or to set aside a judgment for fraud upon the court.'
Appellant in her complaint contends that the return to her interrogatory by respondent omitted the full and complete addresses of at least three of the passengers, although respondent knew of the addresses of those witnesses at the time it answered the interrrogatory. Appellant further alleges that had she been supplied with the full and complete addresses of the three mentioned passengers, she would have been able to obtain their testimony.
A motion to dismiss was filed by respondent contending that the previous attempt to obtain a new trial concluded appellant's remedies. An order and judgment dismissing this action with prejudice was entered on September 18, 1964, from which judgment appellant has appealed.
Appellant's single assignment is that the trial court erred in granting respondent's motion to dismiss and entering the judgment of dismissal.
Appellant contends that not only did respondent fail to include the complete addresses of all witnesses, as requested by the interrogatories in the original trial, but also that respondent had actual knowledge of the true address of at least one of the witnesses and failed to supply that address upon request, thus perpetrating a fraud upon the court. She also contends that this particular act prevented her from securing evidence which, if presented at the trial, would have resulted in a verdict compensating her for personal injuries.
United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. 61, 25 L.Ed. 93 (1878), involved the question of 'fraud upon the court.' After discussing the desire of the court to limit litigation by restricting the grounds for review to extrinsic frauds, the court discussed what would constitute a 'fraud upon the court' as follows:
'In all these cases, and many others which have been examined, relief has been granted, on the ground that, by some fraud practised directly upon the party seeking relief against the judgment or decree, that party has been prevented from presenting all of his case...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Frank v. Bunker Hill Co.
...fraud, but, a companion case did. Side by side with that case in Volume 89 of the Idaho Reporter is another Telfair v. Greyhound Corporation case, 89 Idaho 385, 404 P.2d 875 (1965). Here the appeal was from denial of the plaintiff's independent action to set aside the final judgment. The gr......
-
Willis v. Willis
...different species of frauds specified in Rule 60(b), we next consider 'fraud upon the court.' In the case of Telfair v. Greyhound Corporation, 89 Idaho 385, 404 P.2d 875 (1965), this court discussed what constituted a fraud upon the court and cited with approval several opinions which defin......
-
Lisher v. Krasselt
...or other misconduct of an adverse party; . . .'5 See Willis v. Willis, 93 Idaho 261, 460 P.2d 396 (1969); Telfair v. Greyhound Corp., 89 Idaho 385, 404 P.2d 875 (1965).6 Supra n. 5 Accord, State ex rel. Symms v. V-1 Oil Company, 94 Idaho 456, 490 P.2d 323 (1971); Telfair v. Greyhound Corp.,......
-
McKim v. Horner, 32003.
...the court]; but, as shown by the evidence, appellant did not with due diligence investigate the case." Telfair v. Greyhound Corp., 89 Idaho 385, 388, 404 P.2d 875, 876 (1965) (plaintiff claimed that the defendant failed to provide witnesses' complete addresses, which prevented her from secu......