Legal Opinion

Orr v. Byers

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 16, 1988No. G003286PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

SONENSHINE, J.

The question presented in this appeal is whether an abstract of judgment containing a misspelled name imparts constructive notice of its contents under the doctrine of idem sonans. We conclude it does not and, accordingly, affirm the trial court’s ruling.

I

The facts are not in dispute. In October 1978, James Orr obtained a judgment in excess of $50,000 against William Elliott. The written judgment prepared by Orr’s attorney identified Elliott erroneously as “William Duane Elliot.” The following month, an abstract of judgment was recorded in the Orange County Recorder’s…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Seeley v. SeymourCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1987
  2. Emeric v. AlvaradoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  3. Henderson v. De TurkCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
  4. Napa State Hospital v. DassoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
  5. Galliano v. KilfoyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Aldhelm, Inc. v. Schuylkill County Tax Claim BureauCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
  2. Brady v. MullenSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1994
  3. Lively v. Northfield Savings BankSupreme Court of Vermont · 2007
  4. Lively v. Northfield Savings BankSupreme Court of Vermont · 2007
  5. Vasquez v. LBS Financial Credit UnionCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2020

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API