Ex parte Todd

50 P. 1071, 119 Cal. 57, 1897 Cal. LEXIS 845
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 11, 1897
DocketCrim. No. 362
StatusPublished
Cited by27 cases

This text of 50 P. 1071 (Ex parte Todd) 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 Todd, 50 P. 1071, 119 Cal. 57, 1897 Cal. LEXIS 845 (Cal. 1897).

Opinions

THE COURT.

Petitioner’s wife obtained a decree of divorce, including an order for the payment of permanent alimony in weekly installments. After paying two hundred and eighty dollars, the petitioner ceased making further payments, and, at the instance of the plaintiff in the divorce suit, was cited by the superior court to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt of the order of the court in failing to pay the sum of two hundred dollars in arrears, and also to show cause why he should not pay to plaintiff said sum of two hundred dollars.

Petitioner appeared in response to the citation, and, after hearing testimony pro and eon, the court found, among other facts, that he had no money or other means of payment,. and that he had made no disposition of any property in fraud of his creditors.

The court found, in other words, that it was not in the power of the petitioner to pay the money, or any part of it. But, at the same time, the court found that petitioner, having been allowed a month or thereabouts to seek employment by which, he might have earned money to make the weekly payments of alimoney as prescribed in the order, had wholly failed and neglected to make any effort to obtain employment, and, therefore, ordered him to be imprisoned in the county jail until he paid the two hundred dollars due.

This order was clearly in excess of the power of the court, which cannot compel a man to seek employment in order to earn money to pay alimony, and punish him for his failure so to do.

Prisoner discharged.

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

Related

People v. Fontenot
447 P.3d 252 (California Supreme Court, 2019)
Moss v. Superior Court
950 P.2d 59 (California Supreme Court, 1998)
In Re Feiock
215 Cal. App. 3d 141 (California Court of Appeal, 1989)
University of Utah Hospital Ex Rel. Harris v. Pence
657 P.2d 469 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1982)
In Re Jennings
133 Cal. App. 3d 373 (California Court of Appeal, 1982)
In Re Bronstein
225 Cal. App. 2d 136 (California Court of Appeal, 1964)
Johnson v. Johnson
1957 OK 333 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1957)
Clausen v. Clausen
84 N.W.2d 675 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1957)
In Re Brown
288 P.2d 27 (California Court of Appeal, 1955)
Dimon v. Dimon
254 P.2d 528 (California Supreme Court, 1953)
Acker v. Adamson
293 N.W. 83 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1940)
Andrews v. McMahan
85 P.2d 743 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1938)
Lopez v. Maes
37 P.2d 240 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1934)
In Re Leet
279 P. 466 (California Court of Appeal, 1929)
In re Hamberg
217 P. 264 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1923)
Going v. Going
148 Tenn. 522 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1923)
Van Hoosear v. Railroad Commission
207 P. 903 (California Supreme Court, 1922)
In Re Garner
177 P. 162 (California Supreme Court, 1918)
Fowler v. Fowler
1916 OK 967 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1916)
Ex Parte Joutsen
98 P. 391 (California Supreme Court, 1908)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
50 P. 1071, 119 Cal. 57, 1897 Cal. LEXIS 845, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-todd-cal-1897.