Case Name: R. T. DUNLAP, Respondent, v. JOHN STEERE, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1891-12-14
Citations: 92 Cal. 344
Docket Number: No. 13997
Parties: R. T. DUNLAP, Respondent, v. JOHN STEERE, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 92
Pages: 344–358

Head Matter:
[No. 13997.
In Bank.
December 14, 1891.]
R. T. DUNLAP, Respondent, v. JOHN STEERE, Appellant.
Judgment by Default — Quieting Title — Service of "Summons by Publication — Fraud — Belief in Equity. —Equity will set aside a judgment obtained by default, upon a service of summons by publication in an action to quiet title, though more than one year has elapsed from the rendition of the judgment, where it appears that the plaintiff in equity had no knowledge of the pendency of the, action or of the rendition of the judgment until more than one year after its date, and that the plaintiff in the original action knew that the allegations of his complaint were false, and made a false affidavit that he had a cause of action, in order to secure a service of the summons by publication.
Id.—Grounds for Equitable Relief — Unconscionable Advantage.— In all cases where, by accident, or mistake, or fraud, or otherwise, a party has an unfair advantage in proceedings in a court of law, which must make that court an instrument of injustice, and it is therefore against conscience that he should use that advantage, equity will interfere, and restrain him from using the advantage improperly gained.
Id.—Fraud upon Court — False ex Parte Affidavit.—An affidavit for publication of summons is always ex parte; and if such affidavit falsely states that plaintiff has a cause of action, when he knows the contrary, it operates as a fraud upon the court; and when the judgment which rests upon it is itself unconscionable, and was obtained without the knowledge of the defendant therein, it should be set aside.
Id.—Res Ad judicata — Fraud as to Merits.—The rule that fraud relating to the merits of a controversy is concluded by the judgment, and is not ground for setting aside the judgment, has no application to a case where the plaintiff in equity had no knowledge of the pendency of the action, and could not have protected his rights therein, and his failure to defend was not a negligent omission on his part.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, and from an order denying a new trial
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Wells, Guthrie & Lee, for Appellant.
Chapman & Hendrick, for Respondent. ■

Opinion:
De Haven, J.
The action is one in equity, and is, in effect, to set aside a former judgment between the parties, wherein the alleged title of the defendant herein to the land described in the complaint was quieted as against all claims of the present plaintiff. The findings of the court below show that this judgment was obtained by default, and upon a service of the summons therein by publication, and that the present plaintiff had no knowledge of the pendency of that action, or of the rendition of said judgment, until more than one year after its date. The court also finds, and the evidence is sufficient to sustain these findings, that in point of fact the plaintiff here was the owner of the property involved in that action, and that not only was the defendant here without title, but that he knew that the allegations of the complaint filed by him for the purpose of obtaining the judgment referred to were wholly false. The ques tion therefore presented is, whether a judgment thus obtained is beyond the reach of successful attack in a court of equity. The legal effect of this judgment, if permitted to stand, is to divest plaintiff of all title to his property, in favor of one who has succeeded, by a compliance with the mere forms of law, in obtaining such judgment, and that, too, without the knowledge of plaintiff, and therefore when it was morally impossible for him to defeat it. We think the plaintiff is entitled to the relief which he asks, not only upon authority, but upon the plainest principles of justice. "In general, it may be stated that in all cases where, by accident, or mistake, or fraud, or otherwise, a party has an unfair advantage in proceedings in a court of law, which must necessarily make that court an instrument of injustice, and it is therefore against conscience that he should use that advantage, a court of equity will interfere, and restrain him from using the advantage which he has thus improperly gained." (Story's Eq. Jur., sec. 885.) In order to justify the application of this rule, it must appear, not only that the judgment against which relief is sought is unjust and unconscionable in itself, but that the person against whom, it was rendered was not guilty of negligence in omitting to make his defense in the original action. The facts as found by the court below bring this case fully and clearly within the operation of the rule of equity just cited. In the first place, the defendant practiced a fraud upon the court as well as upon the present plaintiff, in procuring the order for the publication of the summons in the action referred to. Under section 412 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff is entitled, under certain circumstances, to procure such an order; but in order to be so entitled, he is required by that section to first present to the court or judge, either in the form of a verified complaint or an affidavit, a statement of facts showing that a cause of action exists in his favor against the defendant. Such an affidavit was presented by the defendant here in the action which resulted in the judgment now sought to be set aside, but it necessarily results from the findings of the court that not only was the defendant's affidavit false in this respect, but that he knew that it was false. An affidavit of this character is always ex parte. The absent defendant is not present to impeach it, and if it is sufficient in form, the court cannot disregard it, but is compelled to accept its statements as true, and make the order which is demanded. Under such circumstances, a plaintiff who seeks to avail himself of the statutory mode for a constructive service of summons must exercise good faith in his representations to the court or judge. He must at least believe that the affidavit which he presents is true. The presentation of a willfully false affidavit for the purpose of obtaining an order for service of the summons for publication is itself an act of fraud; and when the judgment which rests upon it is itself unconscionable, and was obtained without the knowledge of the defendant therein, it should be set aside.
It is claimed, however, that the fraud here complained of is concluded by the judgment itself; that whether the defendant had a good title to the land in controversy was the very matter involved in the former action, and the judgment therein is conclusive upon the plaintiff; and in support of that, the case of United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U. S. 61, and other similar cases, are cited. But the rule there announced is only applicable where the former judgment was the result of a trial between the parties, or where the one against whom the judgment was rendered had actual notice of the pendency of the action, and neglected to submit his proofs. The case just mentioned was one in which a retrial of an action which had been once fully tried was asked, and can have no kind of bearing here, where the plaintiff never had his day in court, or any opportunity to make his defense to the false and fraudulent claim upon which the judgment against him was based. Hot having any knowledge of the pendency of that action, it was an absolute impossibility for him to protect his rights therein, and his failure to defend was not a negligent omission on his part. It is this difference in the facts which brings the plaintiff here within the protection of the exception to the general rule which was acted upon in United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U. S. 61, and the existence of which exception was not only admitted in the opinion of the court in that case, but was afterwards applied in United States v. Minor, 114 U. S. 233. In the case of Adams v. Secor, 6 Kan. 542, it was held by the supreme court of that state that a judgment based upon a false and fraudulent claim should be set aside, where the defendant therein had only been served by publication, and did not have actual notice of the pendency of the action. In Tomkins v. Tomkins, 11 N. J. Eq. 512, the court, while refusing relief upon the facts before it, recognized the justice of relieving a defendant from an unjust judgment obtained without his knowledge. It is there said: "The usual ground upon which a court of equity refuses to interfere with a judgment is because the defendant should have protected himself in the court where the judgment was obtained. In a case like the present, of foreign attachment, where the proceeding is in .rem, and the judgment is obtained without the knowledge of the defendant, and the proceedings are all necessarily ex parte, it would be hard indeed if this court could not interpose to protect a party against the fraud of the plaintiff. The propriety of this court's interfering in such cases is too obvious to require its vindication." In the case of Irvine v. Leyh, 102 Mo. 200, the supreme court of Missouri state what we deem the true rule to be applied here. After referring to the case of United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U. S. 61, and other cases following it, the court say: "The principle thus so strongly stated in the cases cited proceeds upon the ground that the party had an opportunity to appear and interpose the defense in the suit in which the judgment complained of was rendered. The cases before cited are those in which the defendant in the first suit appeared, or had actual notice of the suit, and might have interposed the fraud as a defense. In all such cases the issues made by the pleading, or which might have been made, are justly regarded as settled and merged in the judgment, leaving collateral matters only open to investigation. But, in our opinion, the rule of the cases cited cannot be applied in all of its strictness to a case where the defendant has been brought in by newspaper notice only, and had no actual notice of the suit, and, as a consequence, had no real opportunity to defend. The rule must be applied to those cases where the reason upon which it is founded admits of its application. But to entitle the plaintiffs to the relief which they asked and procured in the case, it is not enough for them to simply show that Leyh had no valid cause of action against them. They must at least show that the claim was founded upon or conceived in fraud, and that the machinery of the law was resorted to for the purpose of enforcing what was known to be a fraudulent demand." The facts found by the court here fully satisfy the rule as held in the case just cited. That rule, it seems to us, gives to one obtaining a judgment against another without a trial, and without his knowledge, sufficient protection. Its application to the facts of this case must result in an affirmance of the order appealed from.
Appeal from judgment dismissed; order denying motion for new trial affirmed.
Sharpstein, J., and Harrison, J., concurred.