[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.
[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.)