Bennett v. Brown

5 Citing cases

  1. DeGarmo v. Goldman

    19 Cal.2d 755 (Cal. 1942)   Cited 78 times
    In DeGarmo v. Goldman (1942) 19 Cal.2d 755 [ 123 P.2d 1], the Supreme Court explained that "[t]he doctrine that when classification is necessary, a court should look to the historical basis of the plaintiff's right under the English law in the light of such modifications as have taken place in this country (Philpott v. Superior Court, [supra,] 1 Cal.2d 512...), is not always an accurate one.

    The rule in this regard is a fundamental one. ( Bennett v. Brown, 206 Cal. 424 [ 274 P. 532]; Young v. Young HoldingsCorp., Ltd., 27 Cal.App.2d 129 [80 P.2d 723]; Baar v. Smith, 97 Cal.App. 398 [ 275 P. 861]).

  2. Tognazzi v. Wilhelm

    6 Cal.2d 123 (Cal. 1936)   Cited 37 times
    In Tognazzi, our Supreme Court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied leave to amend to allege no intent to defraud creditors in contravention of the original pleading.

    As stated in Saint v. Saint, 120 Cal.App. 15, 22 [ 7 P.2d 374], "he who executes a conveyance of property for the purpose of hindering, delaying or defrauding his creditors, cannot by any action in equity obtain a reconveyance from his grantee, nor can anyone claiming under him, except an innocent purchaser". We pause to cite but a few of the innumerable authorities containing declarations to this effect: Bennett v. Brown, 206 Cal. 424, 428 [ 274 P. 532]; Faria v. Faria, 100 Cal.App. 177, 181 [ 280 P. 187]; Allstead v. Laumeister, 16 Cal.App. 59 [ 116 P. 296]. [2] The mere fact that the creditor at the time of the conveyance had not procured the deficiency judgment which the conveyance was intended to defeat, is immaterial.

  3. Bennett v. Bennett

    219 Cal. 153 (Cal. 1933)   Cited 16 times

    From that judgment Bennett appealed. The decision is reported in Bennett v. Brown, 206 Cal. 424 [ 274 P. 532, 533]. The evidence in the record demonstrated conclusively that Bennett had in fact deeded said property to Arthur J. Brown in order to forestall his wife from asserting any rights in said property and preparatory to his seeking a divorce from her in Reno, Nevada.

  4. Russell v. Soldinger

    59 Cal.App.3d 633 (Cal. Ct. App. 1976)   Cited 24 times
    Affirming nonsuit on opening statement based on doctrine of unclean hands

    "The rule in this regard is a fundamental one. ( Bennett v. Brown, 206 Cal. 424 [ 274 P. 532]; Young v. Young Holdings Corp., Ltd., 27 Cal.App.2d 129 [ 80 P.2d 723]; Baar v. Smith, 97 Cal.App. 398 [ 275 P. 861]). It was succinctly explained in Allstead v. Laumeister, 16 Cal.App. 59, 64 [ 116 P. 296], where the court, quoting from Pomeroy's Equity Jurisprudence, said that `"whenever a party, who, as actor, seeks to set the judicial machinery in motion and obtain some remedy, has violated conscience, or good faith, or other equitable principle, in his prior conduct, then the doors of the court will be shut against him in limine; the court will refuse to interfere on his behalf, to acknowledge his right, or to award him any remedy."' (See, also, Richman v. Bank of Perris, 102 Cal.App. 71 [ 282 P. 801].)

  5. Katz v. Karlsson

    84 Cal.App.2d 469 (Cal. Ct. App. 1948)   Cited 24 times
    In Katz v. Karlsson, 84 Cal.App.2d 469 [ 191 P.2d 541], vacation of a final decree of divorce was denied where the defendant husband sought to show that the plaintiff wife had perpetrated a fraud upon the court in obtaining the final decree upon an affidavit stating there had been no reconciliation since the issuance of the interlocutory decree.

    "The rule in this regard is a fundamental one. ( Bennett v. Brown, 206 Cal. 424 [ 274 P. 532]; Young v. Young Holdings Corp., Ltd., 27 Cal.App.2d 129 [ 80 P.2d 723]; Barr v. Smith, 97 Cal.App. 398 [ 275 P. 861].) It was succinctly explained in Allstead v. Laumeister, 16 Cal.App. 59, 64 [ 116 P. 296], where the court, quoting from Pomeroy's Equity Jurisprudence, said that `"whenever a party, who, as actor, seeks to set the judicial machinery in motion and obtain some remedy, has violated conscience, or good faith, or other equitable principle, in his prior conduct, then the doors of the court will be shut against him in limine; the court will refuse to interfere on his behalf, to acknowledge his right, or to award him any remedy."' (See, also, Richman v. Bank of Perris, 102 Cal.App. 71 [ 282 P. 801].)