Dunn v. Dunn
This text of 62 Cal. 176 (Dunn v. Dunn) 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.
Opinion
The ground relied on by the plaintiff for divorce was the alleged habitual intemperance of the defendant. Section 106 of the Civil Code declares that “habitual intemperance is that degree of intemperance from the use of intoxicating drinks which disqualifies the person a great portion of the time from properly attending to business, or which would reasonably inflict a course of great mental anguish upon the innocent party;" and the following section declares that such intemperance must continue for one year, before it is a ground for divorce. There is in the case before us no finding that the habitual intemperance of which the defendant was found guilty had continued for the period of one year, for which reason we are bound to remand the cause. Judgment reversed and cause remanded for a new trial.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
62 Cal. 176, 1882 Cal. LEXIS 715, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dunn-v-dunn-cal-1882.