Harden v. Harden

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Harden v. Harden

1934 OK 511, 36 P.2d 493, 169 Okla. 166, 1934 Okla. LEXIS 285

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedOctober 9, 1934

Docket25145

StatusPublished

This text of 1934 OK 511 (Harden v. Harden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Harden v. Harden, 1934 OK 511, 36 P.2d 493, 169 Okla. 166, 1934 Okla. LEXIS 285 (Okla. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

BUSBY, J.

Plaintiff in error, John Francis Harden, appealed from the judgment of the superior court of Seminole county directing him to pay $100 per month for 19' months as alimony. The appeal was perfected to this court on or about November 4, 1933. On December 1, 1933, this court made an order directing said plaintiff in error to pay defendant in error during the pendency of said appeal the sum of $50 per month. The plaintiff in error has been cited for contempt of this court for failure to pay the $50 per month as ordered, and has failed and refused to appear before this court and show cause why he has not complied with the order. The defendant in error herein has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. The motion is hereby sustained and the appeal dismissed for failure on the part of plaintiff in error to comply with the orders of this court.

RILEY, C. J., and SWINDALL, McNEILL, OSBORN, BAYLESS, and WELCH, JJ., concur. CULLISON, Y. C. J., and ANDREWS, J., absent.

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

BUSBY, J.

Plaintiff in error, John Francis Harden, appealed from the judgment of the superior court of Seminole county directing him to pay $100 per month for 19' months as alimony. The appeal was perfected to this court on or about November 4, 1933. On December 1, 1933, this court made an order directing said plaintiff in error to pay defendant in error during the pendency of said appeal the sum of $50 per month. The plaintiff in error has been cited for contempt of this court for failure to pay the $50 per month as ordered, and has failed and refused to appear before this court and show cause why he has not complied with the order. The defendant in error herein has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. The motion is hereby sustained and the appeal dismissed for failure on the part of plaintiff in error to comply with the orders of this court.

RILEY, C. J., and SWINDALL, McNEILL, OSBORN, BAYLESS, and WELCH, JJ., concur. CULLISON, Y. C. J., and ANDREWS, J., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1934 OK 511, 36 P.2d 493, 169 Okla. 166, 1934 Okla. LEXIS 285, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harden-v-harden-okla-1934.