In Trumpler v. Trumpler (1899) 123 Cal. 248, the plaintiffs and defendants agreed to a judgment partitioning certain property and then joined together to convey all of the property to a person named Glide. The parties later got together in an effort to divest Glide of the property, pursuant to which the plaintiffs moved for a new trial and then appealed from the order denying the motion. On appeal, the parties entered into a stipulation confessing the validity of the errors asserted on appeal and agreeing the order denying a new trial should be reversed and the cause remanded. After the Supreme Court's remittitur issued, Glide became aware of the proceedings and moved to recall. Although an appellate court normally loses jurisdiction when a remittitur issues, when fraud or imposition has been practiced upon the court or opposing counsel, then the court may recall the remittitur and assert its jurisdiction on the ground that the order was a nullity. (Id. at pp. 252-253.) "The case at bar is one to which the principle above stated clearly applies. It appears that the nominal parties plaintiffs and defendants had no further interest whatever in the land; that the motion for a new trial and the confession of error were for the sole purpose of defeating the real party in interest, who was given no notice and had no knowledge thereof; . . . and that the confession was an imposition upon this court by which it was wrongfully induced by parties having no real interest in the litigation to render a judgment injuriously affecting the rights of the person who was the real owner of the land involved." (Id. at p. 253.)