Morehouse v. Morehouse

The plaintiff is the widow and administratrix of the deceased, Le Grand Morehouse, and sues to quiet the title of the estate of deceased to lands in the County of Glenn, described in the complaint, of which, it is alleged, the deceased died seised. The defendant (who is the brother of deceased) pleads in defense that the land was purchased by himself and the deceased jointly, each to own in equal shares, and that, under an arrangement between them, the

The first question to he considered is raised by the contention of the appellant that the court erred in denying his motion for continuance. The case, it appears, was at issue March 17, 1899, and on May 22, 1899, was by consent set for trial June 19, 1899. But on June 12th the defendant met with a serious accident, and for this reason the case was several times continued, each time against the objection of plaintiff, until September 13th, the day of the trial, when the court refused to grant the appellant’s motion for a further continuance. The motion was made on the ground of the continued illness of the defendant, and his consequent inability to attend the trial, and, we think, should have been granted. The necessity of defendant’s presence at the trial, if not sufficiently apparent from the nature and circumstances of the case, is shown by the affidavit of Mr. Albery, his attorney, and the impracticability of his attendance by the affidavit of his attending physician, Dr. Stitt. The latter, after describing the defendant’s condition and the slowness of his recovery, owing to his advanced age, says that at no time since the defendant has been under his care, or since July 7, 1899, has “his condition been such, either physically or mentally, that his deposition could, without serious injury to him, have been taken, and that it would now be extremely' dangerous to his health to take the same; that his condition at this time is such that his deposition could not be taken, nor could he be táken to Willows [the place of trial] without great risk to his life.” He adds that he could not consent tó the defendant’s removal or to the taking of his deposition within six, weeks, but that “if his condition improve, as it likely will, if perfect rest is accorded to him, he will be able to be about and to attend to his affairs by the fifteenth day of October, 1899.” There is nothing in the affidavits filed on behalf of the plaintiff tending to contradict the statements of this affiant, or to raise a suspicion as to its good faith, or as to the good faith of the application for a continuance; and the case therefore comes within the authority of the decision in Jaffe v. Lilienthal, 101 Cal. 175 .

It may be admitted, as urged by the respondent’s counsel, that from the mere fact of the quarrel alleged it cannot be conclusively, or even probably, inferred that the judge could not fairly try the defendant’s case; and we are glad to believe that with most judges the inference would be incorrect. But here there is a direct allegation of the fact of prejudice and bias on the part of the judge; and though the allegation is based— as in most cases it must be based—merely on the belief of the affiant, yet it is accompanied by a statement of the facts on which the belief is based, as complete as the nature of the case admitted of; and this was all that could reasonably be required. The court should therefore have granted the motion.

In reaching this conclusion, it is proper to say, we have attached no importance to the allegation of the defendant’s affidavit, that after his election the judge said that he would take the first opportunity of getting even with those who did not support him in the election. The allegation of a specific

The only remaining point necessary to be considered was presented by the rulings of the court refusing to require the plaintiff, who had been called as a witness by the defendant, to produce certain papers demanded by the latter, or to answer certain questions with 'regard thereto. The witness had testified that there were in the possession of her attorneys certain writings of her intestate husband relating to the purchase of the land in controversy; and in response to the demand of defendant’s attorney for an inspection of these documents, her attorney had declined to allow an inspection of any papers, “unless specifically called for.” Thereupon the defendant’s attorney asked the plaintiff, then on the stand, to produce “the paper in her possession in which Le Grand Morehouse has set out a statement referring to the purchase of the Clark Valley ranch, and in which he gives the figures as to the amount of the purchase price, and how it was paid, and by whom paid; and reference made in the statement to the method of payment”; and with this request plaintiff’s attorneys declined to comply, for the reason that it had not been shown that any such paper was in their possession or under their control. The witness was then asked whether she had such a paper, either in her possession or under her control, or in the possession of either of her attorneys; and this question, being objected to by plaintiff’s counsel, was excluded by the court. The witness was then successively asked if she had in her possession or under her control “a paper in the handwriting of Le Grand Morehouse, in which it is stated or shown that Geo. W. Morehouse put into the purchase of the Clark’s Valley ranch his Solano County property, at a figure of $42,500”; or “a letter written by George W. Morehouse to Le Grand Morehouse (in the month of July, 1894), in which this language is used, or in substance and to this effect: That ‘I will put (referring to the writer, George W. Morehouse), I will put in my Solano County ranch at $42,500 and will move up on the ranch (referring to Clark’s Valley ranch) if you will pay the balance of the purchase price’ (referring to the purchase price),”