In re McCandless

California Court of Appeal

In re McCandless

17 Cal. App. 222

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedOctober 5, 1911

DocketCrim. No. 222

StatusPublished

This text of 17 Cal. App. 222 (In re McCandless) 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 McCandless, 17 Cal. App. 222 (Cal. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

Petitioner, as shown by the return, is in the custody of the sheriff by virtue of a commitment issued on account of petitioner’s failure to make certain monthly payments by the superior court directed for the support and maintenance of his minor children. It nowhere appears in the record, nor in any order or judgment of the superior court in connection with the proceedings, that petitioner has the ability to pay the sum ordered. While it is the duty of a parent to support children of tender years, that he be imprisoned on account of the failure to obey an order of the court in connection therewith, it must affirmatively appear that he has the ability to comply with the order of the court. (In re Cowden, 139 Cal. 244, [37 Pac. 156]; Ex parte Cohen, 6 Cal. 319; Ex parte Rowe, 7 Cal. 175; Ex parte Silvia, 123 Cal. 293, [69 Am. St. Rep. 58, 55 Pac. 988].),

Petitioner discharged.

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

THE COURT.

Petitioner, as shown by the return, is in the custody of the sheriff by virtue of a commitment issued on account of petitioner’s failure to make certain monthly payments by the superior court directed for the support and maintenance of his minor children. It nowhere appears in the record, nor in any order or judgment of the superior court in connection with the proceedings, that petitioner has the ability to pay the sum ordered. While it is the duty of a parent to support children of tender years, that he be imprisoned on account of the failure to obey an order of the court in connection therewith, it must affirmatively appear that he has the ability to comply with the order of the court. (In re Cowden, 139 Cal. 244, [37 Pac. 156]; Ex parte Cohen, 6 Cal. 319; Ex parte Rowe, 7 Cal. 175; Ex parte Silvia, 123 Cal. 293, [69 Am. St. Rep. 58, 55 Pac. 988].),

Petitioner discharged.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 Cal. App. 222, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-mccandless-calctapp-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack