Tullis v. Title Guarantee Etc. Co.

2 Citing cases

  1. Zamora v. PNC Bank, N.A.

    No. A139604 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 11, 2014)

    He further prayed for declaratory relief to his contention that "the monies derived from the transactions relating to Plaintiff's account, LOAN, NOTE, PROPERTY and DEED, including but not limited to upfront payments and successive monies paid and received by Defendants in conjunction are due to Plaintiff." Plaintiff's effort to rescind the loan agreement and recover the sums paid thereunder is another instance of seeking equitable relief. (Farrar v. Steenburgh (1916) 173 Cal. 94, 97 ["It is distinctly a cause of action in equity to rescind a contract of sale, cancel a note and mortgage, and recover the consideration paid"]; Tullis v. Title Guarantee etc. Co. (1936) 11 Cal.App.2d 391, 393; Fair View Farms Co. v. Superior Court (1932) 123 Cal.App. 9, 10-11.) It is therefore subject to the tender requirement: "The right to rescind is conditional upon the party who rescinds restoring everything of value which he has received in the transaction."

  2. Wehen v. Lundgaard

    41 Cal.App.2d 610 (Cal. Ct. App. 1940)   Cited 3 times

    [1] It is true, as contended by appellant, that in actions at law the jurisdiction of the superior court is limited to amounts in excess of $2,000, but it is equally true that if the action is one for equitable relief, then the superior court is clothed with jurisdiction. ( Fair View Farms Co. v. Superior Court, 123 Cal.App. 9 [ 10 P.2d 1011]; Tullis v. Title Guarantee etc. Co., 11 Cal.App. (2d) 391 [ 54 P.2d 65].) But this is not a case in which equity will intervene.