Home/California Court of Appeal/In Re Brune

In Re Brune

298 P. 80, 113 Cal. App. 254, 1931 Cal. App. LEXIS 933
California Court of Appeal·Decided April 8, 1931·No. Docket No. 1629.·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

THE COURT.

Habeas corpus. [1] Petitioner claims he is unlawfully imprisoned for failure to comply with an order requiring him to pay certain sums for the support and maintenance of his wife. He alleges that since the making of the order a disability to comply therewith has arisen. The petition is denied on the ground that no application for discharge has been first made in the court below. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1143; In re Wilson, 75 Cal. 580 [17 P. 698].) *Page 255

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

In Re Brune, 298 P. 80, 113 Cal. App. 254, 1931 Cal. App. LEXIS 933 (Cal. Ct. App. 1931).

298 P. 80 (In Re Brune) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Paul Harris v. Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, Andpeter Petchess, Sheriff of Los Angeles County, Co-Respondents, the State Ofcalifornia, Real Party in Interest, Fawn Harris v. Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, Andpeter Pitchess, Sheriff of Los Angeles, County, Co-Respondents, the People Ofthe State of California, Real Party in Interest
500 F.2d 1124 (Ninth Circuit, 1974)
Harris v. Superior Court of State of California for the County of Los Angeles
500 F.2d 1124 (Ninth Circuit, 1974)
In Re Elias
209 Cal. App. 2d 262 (California Court of Appeal, 1962)