Higgins v. Higgins
Citations
- 121 Cal. 487
- 53 P. 1081
- 1898 Cal. LEXIS 937
Syllabus
<p>Husband and • Wife —Agreement fob Sepaeation—Annuity Ciiaeged upon Husband’s Estate—Notice to Mobtgagee.—An agreement .{or separation between husband and wife, providing for the payment of an annuity to the wife during her life, to constitute a lien upon his “estate,” which is duly acknowledged and recorded, creates á ■• lien upon all of the lands of the husband for arrearages of the' hn- nuity, and is notice to ¿ subsequent mortgagee of particular Iahds , belonging to the husband, and entitled to priority over, the mortgage.</p> <p>Id.—Consteuction of Agreement—Meaning of “Estate”—Identification of Lands—Evidence.—The term “estate” used in the agreement lor separation to denote the subject of the lien, though, having a diversity of legal meanings, is to be understood in the sense which will accomplish and not defeat the obvious purpose to create a lien, and as comprehending property susceptible of being impressed with a lien, and, being used without qualification, includes all the lands of the husband. Failure to indicate the locality of the lands, or specifically to describe them, is not fatal to the lien; but the principle that “that is certain which is capable of being made certain,” is applicable; and extrinsic evidence is admissible, under proper pleading, to identify the property.</p>
Judges: Britt
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
5 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Sanborn v. SanbornCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1934-12-31· cited 21×
- Snyder v. BridewellSupreme Court of Arkansas· 1924-12-08· cited 21×
- Estate of BelknapCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1944-11-01· cited 11×
- White v. Pacific Southwest Trust & Savings BankS.D. California· 1925-12-11· cited 7×
- Rily v. MannonCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1944-11-01· cited 1×
Cites
10 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Witt v. HarlanTexas Supreme Court· 1886-11-09· cited 40×
- Roehl v. HaumesserIndiana Supreme Court· 1888-02-08· cited 39×
- Pettigrew v. DobbelaarCalifornia Supreme Court· 1883-05-11· cited 27×
- Mobile & Cedar Point R. R. v. Talman & RalstonsSupreme Court of Alabama· 1849-01-15· cited 26×
- DeWolf v. A. & W. Sprague Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1881-10-15· cited 20×
- Clifton Heights Land Co. v. RandellSupreme Court of Iowa· 1891-02-02· cited 11×
- Herman v. DemingSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1876-06-15· cited 10×
- Green Bros. v. WitherspoonSupreme Court of Louisiana· 1885-10-15· cited 9×
- Drew v. CarrollMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1891-06-26· cited 5×
- California Title Insurance & Trust Co. v. PaulyCalifornia Supreme Court· 1896-01-25· cited 4×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.