Lucas v. Sweet
California Supreme Court
1Concurrence
SCHAUER, J., Concurring.
I do not accept as accurate the implications in the statement of the majority opinion that the specific factual allegations as to breach of fiduciary duty do not “reveal such a defect in the plaintiff’s title as would prevent him from stating a cause of action to quiet title in general terms.” The applicable rule is that where plaintiff’s right to have title quieted is based on fraud (or, here, facts which have the effect of fraud because they make the execution sale subject to attack), plaintiff must allege the facts from which the right to relief affirmatively…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Odell v. CoxCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
- Strong v. StrongCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
- Burris v. AdamsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Thompson v. MooreCalifornia Supreme Court · 1937
- Baar v. SmithCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.