Barber v. Barber

16 Cal. 378
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1860
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 16 Cal. 378 (Barber v. Barber) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Barber v. Barber, 16 Cal. 378 (Cal. 1860).

Opinion

Field, C. J. delivered the opinion of the Court

Cope, J. concurring.

This is an action of divorce, on the ground of the adultery of the wife. The Court decreed the dissolution of the marriage contract between the parties, with a provision declaring that it should not be lawful for the defendant to marry again durhig the life of her husband, and proMbiting her from so domg. It is from tliis provision of the decree that the appeal is taken.

The decree must be modified in tMs particular. There is no authority in the Court to impose any restraint upon a second marriage, where a dissolution from the bonds of matrimony is adjudged. With the dissolution, the obligations arising from the marriage are completely discharged, and the parties stand in the same position as though such marriage had never been contracted. The cases where restraint upon ;-i second marriage is permitted, have arisen upon express, statutes authorizing its imposition upon the guilty party. (Bishop on Divorce, secs. 655-659; The People v. Hovey, 5 Barb. 118.)

The case is remanded to the District Court, with directions to modify the decree in the particular mentioned.

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

Related

Cavitt v. City of Los Angeles
251 Cal. App. 2d 623 (California Court of Appeal, 1967)
O'Melia v. Adkins
166 P.2d 298 (California Court of Appeal, 1946)
Lovell v. Parrish
93 P.2d 166 (California Court of Appeal, 1939)
Shelton v. Shelton
99 S.E. 557 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1919)
Underwood v. Underwood
98 S.E. 207 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1919)
Durland v. Durland
63 L.R.A. 959 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1903)
Willey v. Willey
60 P. 145 (Washington Supreme Court, 1900)
Musick v. Musick
13 S.E. 302 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1891)
Baughman v. Baughman
32 Kan. 538 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1884)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
16 Cal. 378, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barber-v-barber-cal-1860.