Court Opinion

ID: 9864602
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 14:17:15.722122+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:19:23.229546
License: Public Domain

THE COURT.
A rehearingis asked on the ground that in the original opinion it was held: First, that the action was a collateral attack upon a judgment; second, that the judgment *249in the action grants relief in excess of that prayed for; and, third, that the findings are not supported by the evidence.
Upon a re-examination of the matter we agree with the respondent that plaintiff was not precluded from attacking the assignment on the ground of fraud although the land had been distributed to defendant White in probate proceedings.
Jenner v. Murphy, 6 Cal. App. 434, [92 Pac. 405]; More v. More, 133 Cal. 489, [65 Pac. 1044], and other cases now for the first time called to our attention in the ease, we think sustain plaintiff’s contention. We therefore withdraw from the original opinion all discussion on that branch of the case. The second point or ground was not at any time given serious consideration and is unnecessary to the decision. The decision was rested entirely on our conclusion that the evidence is insufficient to support the findings and upon that' point nothing in the petition for a rehearing creates, in our minds, a doubt of the correctness of our conclusions.
The petition is denied.
Chipman, P. J.
Burnett, J.
Hart, J.
A petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on December 27, 1912.