Cammack v. Cammack

California Supreme Court

Cammack v. Cammack

205 Cal. 674

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 27, 1928

DocketL. A. No. 9514

StatusPublished

This text of 205 Cal. 674 (Cammack v. Cammack) 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

Cammack v. Cammack, 205 Cal. 674 (Cal. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

SHENK, J.

This is an appeal by the defendant from an order denying his application to have the care, custody, and control of Prank Strawn, aged ten, and Mary Jane, aged eight, the minor children of the parties, transferred from the plaintiff, their mother, to the defendant. The appeal is based upon the contention of the defendant that the evidence is insufficient to support the conclusion of the trial court that the mother is a fit and proper person to have the custody of her children.

[675]*675The order was discretionary and may not be set aside except for an abuse of discretion. A review of the record discloses that the evidence was sufficient to support the order and that the trial court was properly guided by the considerations prescribed by section 246 of the Civil Code. No abuse of discretion is shown.

The judgment is affirmed.

Richards, J., and Langdon, J., concurred.

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

SHENK, J.

This is an appeal by the defendant from an order denying his application to have the care, custody, and control of Prank Strawn, aged ten, and Mary Jane, aged eight, the minor children of the parties, transferred from the plaintiff, their mother, to the defendant. The appeal is based upon the contention of the defendant that the evidence is insufficient to support the conclusion of the trial court that the mother is a fit and proper person to have the custody of her children.

[675]*675The order was discretionary and may not be set aside except for an abuse of discretion. A review of the record discloses that the evidence was sufficient to support the order and that the trial court was properly guided by the considerations prescribed by section 246 of the Civil Code. No abuse of discretion is shown.

The judgment is affirmed.

Richards, J., and Langdon, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 Cal. 674, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cammack-v-cammack-cal-1928.