Reis v. Lawrence

Decided February 12, 1883

California Supreme Court · decided 1883-02-12

The action was brought against Fannie P. Lawrence and Edwin A. Lawrence on a promissory note for money loaned, and to enforce a lien for the payment thereof arising from certain conveyances of real estate absolute on their face, but intended as security. A judgment was rendered on the note against Edwin A. Lawrence. The additional facts are stated in the opinion of the court, and the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice McKee.

Relies on Davis v. Davis · Ferris v. Higley

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1883-02-12

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently March 1917

3 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Thornton, J.

¶1I dissent. I see no element of estoppel in this case. The plaintiff had knowledge of all the facts, or ready and accessible means of knowledge, which is always held to be equivalent to knowledge. The plaintiff was not deceived, and without some element of fraud or deceit there can be no estoppel. (Davis v. Davis, 26 Cal. 23, where the Supreme Court of this State has spoken in unmistakable terms.)

¶2The decree of divorce rendered by the Probate Court of Utah is void. That court had no jurisdiction of the subject-matter. (Cast v. Cast, 1 Utah, 122; Ferris v. Higley, 20 Wall. 375.) This decree was not confirmed by the act of Congress of June 23, 1873. I do not think it came within the terms of the act, and if it did Congress had no power to confirm a void decree. (See Cooley’s Principles of Constitutional Law, 325.)

¶3Petition for a rehearing denied.