Lacey v. Lacey

40 P. 1056, 108 Cal. 45, 1895 Cal. LEXIS 818
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 9, 1895
DocketNo. 19526
StatusPublished
Cited by21 cases

This text of 40 P. 1056 (Lacey v. Lacey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lacey v. Lacey, 40 P. 1056, 108 Cal. 45, 1895 Cal. LEXIS 818 (Cal. 1895).

Opinion

The Court.

Action for divorce and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals from that part of the= [46]*46judgment which decrees to plaintiff three thousand five hundred dollars and interest for her counsel fees.

During the pendency of the action respondent applied for counsel fees and the court allowed her five hundred dollars, which was paid, with “ leave to apply for a further allowance.” In addition to this, appellant paid respondent, prior to and during the pendency of the action, two hundred dollars per month. No further allowance for counsel fees was made until the final judgment, by which respondent was awarded a large amount of real and personal property of the value of nearly one hundred thousand dollars, and being about one-half of the community property. In this final judgment respondent was allowed two thousand five hundred dollars as additional counsel fees.

The allowance was for past services, and, under the circumstances, was clearly not necessary to enable the wife .... to prosecute .... the action”; and upon the authority of Loveren v. Loveren, 100 Cal. 493, and Mudd v. Mudd, 98 Cal. 322, it is erroneous.

The cause is remanded, with directions to the superior court to modify the judgment by striking therefrom that part which awards her counsel fees. In all other respects the judgment is affirmed.

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

Related

In Re Marriage of Seaman & Menjou
1 Cal. App. 4th 1489 (California Court of Appeal, 1991)
Trudgen v. Trudgen
329 P.2d 225 (Montana Supreme Court, 1958)
Warner v. Warner
215 P.2d 20 (California Supreme Court, 1950)
McClure v. Donovan
195 P.2d 911 (California Court of Appeal, 1948)
Line v. Line
171 P.2d 733 (California Court of Appeal, 1946)
White v. White
274 P. 990 (California Court of Appeal, 1929)
Burdick v. Burdick
272 P. 752 (California Court of Appeal, 1928)
Albrecht v. Albrecht
269 P. 158 (Montana Supreme Court, 1928)
Smith v. Superior Court
264 P. 573 (California Court of Appeal, 1928)
Stampfli v. Stampfli
199 P. 829 (California Court of Appeal, 1921)
Sherman v. Sherman
190 P. 464 (California Court of Appeal, 1920)
Fites v. Fites
112 N.E. 39 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1916)
Newlands v. Superior Court
154 P. 829 (California Supreme Court, 1916)
Wickland v. Wickland
126 P. 507 (California Court of Appeal, 1912)
Kiddle v. Kiddle
133 N.W. 181 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1911)
Leak v. Leak
156 F. 474 (Ninth Circuit, 1907)
Bordeaux v. Bordeaux
75 P. 359 (Montana Supreme Court, 1904)
McKay v. McKay
57 P. 677 (California Supreme Court, 1899)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
40 P. 1056, 108 Cal. 45, 1895 Cal. LEXIS 818, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lacey-v-lacey-cal-1895.