In Re Harris

California Court of Appeal

In Re Harris

253 P. 953, 81 Cal. App. 498, 1927 Cal. App. LEXIS 898

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedFebruary 25, 1927

DocketDocket No. 1458.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 253 P. 953 (In Re Harris) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re Harris, 253 P. 953, 81 Cal. App. 498, 1927 Cal. App. LEXIS 898 (Cal. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Petitioner was a party to a divorce suit. He was ordered by the court in which the action was pending to pay to his wife, monthly, a certain sum of money as temporary alimony. Having failed to make some of the required payments when they were due, he was cited for contempt of court because of his dereliction, was adjudged *Page 499 guilty, and was sent to jail as a punishment for his alleged offense. He then petitioned this court for the writ of habeascorpus and the writ issued.

[1] On the hearing in the contempt proceeding it was not shown that petitioner had the ability to make the defaulted payments. In fact, the evidence showed without contradiction that he was unable to pay. The order adjudging petitioner in contempt of court was without evidence to support it.

Petitioner is discharged from custody.

Craig, J., and Thompson, J., concurred.

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

Petitioner was a party to a divorce suit. He was ordered by the court in which the action was pending to pay to his wife, monthly, a certain sum of money as temporary alimony. Having failed to make some of the required payments when they were due, he was cited for contempt of court because of his dereliction, was adjudged *Page 499 guilty, and was sent to jail as a punishment for his alleged offense. He then petitioned this court for the writ of habeascorpus and the writ issued.

[1] On the hearing in the contempt proceeding it was not shown that petitioner had the ability to make the defaulted payments. In fact, the evidence showed without contradiction that he was unable to pay. The order adjudging petitioner in contempt of court was without evidence to support it.

Petitioner is discharged from custody.

Craig, J., and Thompson, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 P. 953, 81 Cal. App. 498, 1927 Cal. App. LEXIS 898, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-harris-calctapp-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack