Holt v. Parmer

5 Citing cases

  1. Strachan v. American Ins. Co.

    260 Cal.App.2d 113 (Cal. Ct. App. 1968)   Cited 3 times

    One who has been prevented by such extrinsic factors from presenting his case to the court may bring an independent action in equity to secure relief from the judgment entered against him. Where the court that rendered the judgment has a general jurisdiction in law and in equity, the jurisdiction of equity may be invoked by means of a motion addressed to that court."fn_Holt v. Parmer (1951) 106 Cal.App.2d 329 [ 235 P.2d 43], held that a special defense in an action challenging the validity of a judgment on the grounds of extrinsic fraud presents an equitable issue and that the relief sought could be obtained only in a court of equity. Prior to 1928, article VI, section 5 of the California Constitution granted to the superior court "original jurisdiction in all equity cases."

  2. Lieberman v. Aetna Ins. Co.

    249 Cal.App.2d 515 (Cal. Ct. App. 1967)   Cited 12 times

    " Aside from the fact that Mrs. Lieberman's position prior to trial was in effect a waiver of any right to trial by jury (see Lee v. Giosso, 237 Cal.App.2d 246, 248 [ 46 Cal.Rptr. 803]; Taliaferro v. Hoogs, 236 Cal.App.2d 521, 529 [ 46 Cal.Rptr. 147]), the cause of action by which Aetna sought to set aside and vacate the judgment was clearly one for equitable relief and there was no right to trial by jury. ( Holt v. Parmer, 106 Cal.App.2d 329, 332 [ 235 P.2d 43].) It is possible, of course, that the quoted statement was intended to be directed to the cause of action in Aetna's cross-complaint in which damages were sought from Beggs in the event Aetna was not successful in its effort to set aside the judgment against Silberman.

  3. Bank of America v. Ryan

    207 Cal.App.2d 698 (Cal. Ct. App. 1962)   Cited 25 times
    Stating that if a constructive trust is to be imposed on money and other property, the beneficiary thereof is entitled to recover rents, income, and profits on such property

    [9] "`[W]here the case as made by the pleadings involves the application of the doctrines of equity and the granting of relief, which can be obtained in a court of equity, and not elsewhere, the parties are not entitled to a jury trial.'" ( Holt v. Parmer, 106 Cal.App.2d 329, 332 [ 235 P.2d 43], quoted with approval in Tibbitts v. Fife, 162 Cal.App.2d 568, 573 [ 328 P.2d 212].) [10, 11] Examination of plaintiff's complaint discloses that the gist of its action is equitable in nature.

  4. Tibbitts v. Fife

    162 Cal.App.2d 568 (Cal. Ct. App. 1958)   Cited 12 times

    [10] Appellant argues that "since fraud is cognizable in a court of law, these issues should have been tried by a jury." This argument may be answered in the language in Holt v. Parmer, 106 Cal.App.2d 329, 332 [ 235 P.2d 43]: "Both courts of law and of equity in proper cases have jurisdiction in cases of fraud, and when the facts constituting the fraud and the relief sought are such as are cognizable in a court of law, the parties are entitled to a jury trial; but where the case as made by the pleadings involves the application of the doctrines of equity and the granting of relief, which can be obtained in a court of equity, and not elsewhere, the parties are not entitled to a jury trial." (Emphasis added.)

  5. Eihusen v. Eihusen

    272 Neb. 462 (Neb. 2006)   Cited 12 times

    Evans v. General Motors Corp., 277 Conn, at 510, 893 A.2d at 380. See, also, Holt v. Parmer, 106 Cal. App. 2d 329, 235 P.2d 43 (1951) (stating where case involves application of doctrines of equity and relief sought is equitable, parties are not entitled to jury trial). The existence of the statutory right to vacate a judgment can be traced to 1867, prior to the adoption of the Nebraska Constitution.