Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

123 Cal. 170

Bernheim v. Cerf

California Supreme Court

Decided December 27, 1898

California Supreme Court · decided 1898-12-27

<p>APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Santa Cruz County vacating a judgment. J. H. Logan, Judge.</p> <p>The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

Relies on Goodenow v. Ewer · Brackett v. Banegas

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1898-12-27

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently March 1940

7 state decisions

30189819001910192019301940decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

HENSHAW, J.

¶1Plaintiffs brought their action to foreclose a mortgage upon realty executed to them by the defendant Cerf. The complaint was unverified. The defendant filed an unverified answer. At the trial defendant did not appear. Plaintiff’s attorneys moved the court to strike the answer from the files for lack of verification, upon the somewhat negligent assumption that the complaint was a verified pleading. The motion was inadvertently granted by the court. A decree for plaintiffs was given upon May 26, 1896. The property was sold upon June 24, 1896, and was bought by plaintiffs. After this the discovery was made that the answer had been improperly stricken from the files, and upon July 6, 1896, plaintiffs moved the court to vacate the judgment, reinstate the answer and restore the cause to the calendar for trial. The motion was granted and Cerf appeals.

¶2His contention is, that as plaintiffs were present at the trial and induced the error, their remedy was not under section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but by motion for a new trial. In this, however, he is mistaken.

¶3The course pursued by respondents was the appropriate one. “Courts of equity are ever ready to relieve from sales made upon their decrees, where there has been irregularity in the proceedings, .... provided application be made to them in the suits in which such decrees are entered, within a reasonable time, and the relief sought will not operate to the prejudice of the just rights of others.” (Goodenow v. Ewer, 16 Cal. 461; 76 Am. Dec. 540.) Section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure is in recognition of this equitable principle. Its aid may be invoked by one in whose favor the judgment is rendered, even though he was present at the trial. (Brackett v. Banegas, 99 Cal. 623.) In this case the injury worked by the inadvertent order of the court striking out defendant’s answer is apparent. The application for relief was timely made. Its allowance did not prejudice any of defendant’s just rights.

¶4The order appealed from is affirmed.

¶5Temple, J., and McFarland, J., concurred.

/123/cal/170 · .json · Public domain