In Re McCandless

119 P. 199, 17 Cal. App. 222, 1911 Cal. App. LEXIS 97
California Court of Appeal·Decided October 5, 1911·No. Crim. No. 222.·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

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 P. 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 P. 988].)

Petitioner discharged. *Page 223

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

In Re McCandless, 119 P. 199, 17 Cal. App. 222, 1911 Cal. App. LEXIS 97 (Cal. Ct. App. 1911).

119 P. 199 (In Re McCandless) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State of Wyo. v. Haworth
208 P.2d 279 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1949)
In Re Carpenter
70 P.2d 227 (California Court of Appeal, 1937)
Branham v. State
263 P. 1 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1928)
People v. Smith
175 P. 696 (California Court of Appeal, 1918)
People v. Forester
155 P. 1022 (California Court of Appeal, 1916)