Ex parte Hart

29 P. 774, 94 Cal. 254, 1892 Cal. LEXIS 671
California Supreme Court·Decided April 1, 1892·No. No. 20915·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Beatty, C. J.

The petitioner is imprisoned upon a charge of contempt of court, consisting in his refusal to pay alimony awarded to his divorced wife by the decree of divorce. He contends that the imprisonment is unlawful, because, as he claims, the decree as to the order for alimony is void by reason of the fact that it does not [255] specify the period during which the alimony is to he paid.

As I construe the decree, it intends the payment of alimony to continue during the life of the plaintiff in the divorce suit, or until modified by the court. Such a decree the court had power to make in granting a divorce for the offense of the husband. (Civ. Code, sec. .139.) The decree is, in my opinion, sufficiently certain in its terms. It is within the jurisdiction of the court, and can be enforced by process of contempt.

The prisoner is remanded to custody.

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

Ex parte Hart, 29 P. 774, 94 Cal. 254, 1892 Cal. LEXIS 671 (Cal. 1892).

29 P. 774 (Ex parte Hart) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Stoutland v. Estate of Stoutland Ex Rel. Stoutland
103 N.W.2d 286 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1960)
Borton v. Borton
162 So. 529 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1935)
Epps v. Epps
120 So. 150 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1929)
Fischer v. Fischer
137 S.E. 821 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1927)
Smith v. Rogers
112 So. 190 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1927)
Soule v. Soule
87 P. 205 (California Court of Appeal, 1906)