Fisher v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal

Fisher v. Superior Court

294 P. 446, 110 Cal. App. 567, 1930 Cal. App. LEXIS 22

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedDecember 19, 1930

DocketDocket No. 7629.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 294 P. 446 (Fisher v. Superior Court) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fisher v. Superior Court, 294 P. 446, 110 Cal. App. 567, 1930 Cal. App. LEXIS 22 (Cal. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

THOMPSON (IRA F.), J.

This is a companion case to Fisher v. Superior Court (No. 7628), ante, p. 565 [294 Pac. 445], this day decided. In this proceeding the petitioner seeks the writ of mandate compelling the respondent „ court to enter the final decree in the divorce action, which he alleges he demanded of that court after the expiration of one year from the date the interlocutory decree was entered. In addition to the authorities relied upon in the opinion in that case we quote from Dunlap v. Steere, 92 Cal. 344 [27 Am. St. Rep. 143, 16 L. R. A. 361, 28 Pac. 563], as follows: “ ‘In general it may be stated that in all cases where, by accident, or mistake, or fraud, or otherwise, a party has an unfair advantage in proceedings in a court of law, which must necessarily make that court an instrument of injustice, and it is therefore against conscience that he should use that advantage, a court of equity will interfere, and restrain him from using the advantage which he has thus improperly gained.’ (Story’s Eq. Jur., sec. 885.) ” It having been made to appear by a complaint filed in the respondent court that such a situation may exist with respect to this judgment it was the plain duty of the court to refuse to enter the final decree.

Writ denied.

Works, P. J., and Craig, J., concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

THOMPSON (IRA F.), J.

This is a companion case to Fisher v. Superior Court (No. 7628), ante, p. 565 [294 Pac. 445], this day decided. In this proceeding the petitioner seeks the writ of mandate compelling the respondent „ court to enter the final decree in the divorce action, which he alleges he demanded of that court after the expiration of one year from the date the interlocutory decree was entered. In addition to the authorities relied upon in the opinion in that case we quote from Dunlap v. Steere, 92 Cal. 344 [27 Am. St. Rep. 143, 16 L. R. A. 361, 28 Pac. 563], as follows: “ ‘In general it may be stated that in all cases where, by accident, or mistake, or fraud, or otherwise, a party has an unfair advantage in proceedings in a court of law, which must necessarily make that court an instrument of injustice, and it is therefore against conscience that he should use that advantage, a court of equity will interfere, and restrain him from using the advantage which he has thus improperly gained.’ (Story’s Eq. Jur., sec. 885.) ” It having been made to appear by a complaint filed in the respondent court that such a situation may exist with respect to this judgment it was the plain duty of the court to refuse to enter the final decree.

Writ denied.

Works, P. J., and Craig, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

294 P. 446, 110 Cal. App. 567, 1930 Cal. App. LEXIS 22, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fisher-v-superior-court-calctapp-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack