Wright v. Shafter

Decided July 1, 1874

California Supreme Court · decided 1874-07-01

Third Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. The complaint alleged that, on the 27th of November, 1858, Francisco Hurtado and Maria Dolores Hurtado were husband and wife, and that they borrowed from John D. Shafter four thousand dollars, and, to secure the payment of the same, gave him a mortgage on a tract of land in Marin County, .which was the separate property of said Maria, and that, on the 20th of August, 1869, they borrowed from him one thousand dollars,…

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““. . . It is well settled that a complaint claiming relief on the ground of mistake must not only distinctly aver the fact of the mistake, but also set forth the circumstances under which it occurred in so far as those circumstances may be necessary to present a case within the rule of equity upon which relief is granted. Tested by this rule, the complaint here is radically defective, and the demurrer should have been sustained.”' (Italics added.)”

quoted by 1 later decision, including McClure v. Cerati

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1874-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently December 1959

4 state decisions

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 →

By the Court:

¶1The plaintiffs claimed, and in the Court below obtained relief on the ground that a mistake occurred upon their part, in attempting to effect a redemption from the Sheriff’s sale on foreclosure of a mortgage. It is well settled that a complaint claiming relief on the ground of mistake must not only distinctly aver the fact of the mistake, but also set *277forth the circumstances under which it occurred in so far as those circumstances may be necessary to present a case within the rule of equity upon which relief is granted. Tested by this rule, the complaint here is radically defective,- and the demurrer should have been sustained.

¶2Judgment and order denying new trial reversed, and cause remanded, with direction to sustain the demurrer to the complaint. Remittitur forthwith.