Ex Parte Levin

California Supreme Court

Ex Parte Levin

215 P. 908, 191 Cal. 207, 1923 Cal. LEXIS 437

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedMay 28, 1923

DocketCrim. No. 2560.

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 215 P. 908 (Ex Parte Levin) 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

Ex Parte Levin, 215 P. 908, 191 Cal. 207, 1923 Cal. LEXIS 437 (Cal. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

WILBUR, C. J.

The petitioner was adjudged guilty of contempt for failure to pay alimony and counsel fees in a divorce proceeding brought against him by his wife. He seeks relief from said imprisonment upon the ground that he was unable to pay said amount at the time of the adjudication of contempt and that he was deprived of the opportunity of proving his inability to pay said amount upon the hearing of the contempt proceedings. The court found as a fact in its order of commitment that the petitioner was able to comply with the order and this adjudication is conclusive on Jidbeas corpus. (Ex parte Spencer, 83 Cal. 460 [17 Am. St. Rep. 266, 23 Pac. 395]; Ex parte Clark, 110 Cal. 405 [42 Pac. 905] ; Ex parte Cottrell, 59 Cal. 417, 420; Matter of Maginnis, 162 Cal. 200, 206 [121 Pac. 723].)

. The petitioner also alleges that he is now unable to comply with the order and for that reason his imprisonment should terminate. (Pen. Code, see. 1487, subd. 2.) This question should have been presented to the superior court in the first instance. (Ex parte Wilson, 73 Cal. 97 [14 Pac. 393]; In re Wilson, 75 Cal. 580 [17 Pac. 698] ; *209 Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1143 et seq.; Spencer v. Lawler, 79 Cal. 215 [21 Pac. 742].) The petitioner claims that he was denied the right to present his evidence as to his inability to comply with the order of the court. It is sufficient on this point to say that the order of commitment recites that evidence was received in support of the charge of contempt and in view of this recital we cannot consider that question. The writ of habeas corpus cannot "be used as a basis for review as upon appeal. (Ex parte Cottrell, 59 Cal. 422.)

The petition is denied and the prisoner remanded.

Myers, J., Kerrigan, J., Waste, J., Lennon, J., Lawlor, J., and Seawell, J., concurred.

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

WILBUR, C. J.

The petitioner was adjudged guilty of contempt for failure to pay alimony and counsel fees in a divorce proceeding brought against him by his wife. He seeks relief from said imprisonment upon the ground that he was unable to pay said amount at the time of the adjudication of contempt and that he was deprived of the opportunity of proving his inability to pay said amount upon the hearing of the contempt proceedings. The court found as a fact in its order of commitment that the petitioner was able to comply with the order and this adjudication is conclusive on Jidbeas corpus. (Ex parte Spencer, 83 Cal. 460 [17 Am. St. Rep. 266, 23 Pac. 395]; Ex parte Clark, 110 Cal. 405 [42 Pac. 905] ; Ex parte Cottrell, 59 Cal. 417, 420; Matter of Maginnis, 162 Cal. 200, 206 [121 Pac. 723].)

. The petitioner also alleges that he is now unable to comply with the order and for that reason his imprisonment should terminate. (Pen. Code, see. 1487, subd. 2.) This question should have been presented to the superior court in the first instance. (Ex parte Wilson, 73 Cal. 97 [14 Pac. 393]; In re Wilson, 75 Cal. 580 [17 Pac. 698] ; *209 Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1143 et seq.; Spencer v. Lawler, 79 Cal. 215 [21 Pac. 742].) The petitioner claims that he was denied the right to present his evidence as to his inability to comply with the order of the court. It is sufficient on this point to say that the order of commitment recites that evidence was received in support of the charge of contempt and in view of this recital we cannot consider that question. The writ of habeas corpus cannot "be used as a basis for review as upon appeal. (Ex parte Cottrell, 59 Cal. 422.)

The petition is denied and the prisoner remanded.

Myers, J., Kerrigan, J., Waste, J., Lennon, J., Lawlor, J., and Seawell, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

215 P. 908, 191 Cal. 207, 1923 Cal. LEXIS 437, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-levin-cal-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack