Brandes v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal

Brandes v. Superior Court

172 P. 1130, 36 Cal. App. 567, 1918 Cal. App. LEXIS 584

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedMarch 22, 1918

DocketCiv. No. 2513.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 172 P. 1130 (Brandes 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

Brandes v. Superior Court, 172 P. 1130, 36 Cal. App. 567, 1918 Cal. App. LEXIS 584 (Cal. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

WORKS, J., pro tem.

The petitioner was granted a divorce from her husband, H. L. Brandes. The interlocutory decree was, in part, to the effect that Brandes should make certain conveyances of real and personal property to petitioner, and that, “at the time of the execution and delivery” of such conveyances, the petitioner should deliver to a certain bank a certain sheriff’s certificate of sale held by her. Upon the allegation that he had himself complied with the decree, Brandes initiated a proceeding for contempt of court against petitioner on the ground that she had not delivered up the certificate of sale. In the affidavit which instituted the proceeding, Brandes averred that a copy of the decree had been served on petitioner and that demand had been made upon her to comply with its terms. In an answering affidavit, petitioner alleged that the decree was never served upon her and that no demand had ever been made that she deliver up the certificate of sale. Upon the issues thus framed the trial court found with the petitioner, but, nevertheless, it made its order adjudging her guilty of contempt. It is this order which is sought to be annulled in the present proceeding.

*568 The action of the trial court was erroneous. “Before a party can be brought into contempt for not complying with an order of court, such order must be served upon him.” (Hennessy v. Nicol, 105 Cal. 138, 142, [38 Pac. 649, 650].) The order is annulled.

Conrey, P. J., and James, J., concurred.

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

WORKS, J., pro tem.

The petitioner was granted a divorce from her husband, H. L. Brandes. The interlocutory decree was, in part, to the effect that Brandes should make certain conveyances of real and personal property to petitioner, and that, “at the time of the execution and delivery” of such conveyances, the petitioner should deliver to a certain bank a certain sheriff’s certificate of sale held by her. Upon the allegation that he had himself complied with the decree, Brandes initiated a proceeding for contempt of court against petitioner on the ground that she had not delivered up the certificate of sale. In the affidavit which instituted the proceeding, Brandes averred that a copy of the decree had been served on petitioner and that demand had been made upon her to comply with its terms. In an answering affidavit, petitioner alleged that the decree was never served upon her and that no demand had ever been made that she deliver up the certificate of sale. Upon the issues thus framed the trial court found with the petitioner, but, nevertheless, it made its order adjudging her guilty of contempt. It is this order which is sought to be annulled in the present proceeding.

*568 The action of the trial court was erroneous. “Before a party can be brought into contempt for not complying with an order of court, such order must be served upon him.” (Hennessy v. Nicol, 105 Cal. 138, 142, [38 Pac. 649, 650].) The order is annulled.

Conrey, P. J., and James, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 P. 1130, 36 Cal. App. 567, 1918 Cal. App. LEXIS 584, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brandes-v-superior-court-calctapp-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack