Nightingale v. Superior Court of San Francisco

California Supreme Court

Nightingale v. Superior Court of San Francisco

184 Cal. 583

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 28, 1920

DocketS. F. No. 9682

StatusPublished

This text of 184 Cal. 583 (Nightingale v. Superior Court of San Francisco) 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

Nightingale v. Superior Court of San Francisco, 184 Cal. 583 (Cal. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

[1] We entertain no doubt of the power of the court in divorce actions to modify its orders for the payment to the wife of money necessary to enable her to support herself during the pendency of the action, or to enable her to prosecute or defend the action, as the circumstances with regard to necessity change. As to orders for the payment of money for support there has never been any question in this behalf, and there is no difference in principle with relation to money to be paid to her for the purpose of en[584]*584abling her to pay attorneys. The superior court did not exceed its jurisdiction in this matter.

The application for a writ of certiorari is denied.

Angellotti, C. J., Lennon, J., Wilbur, J., Sloane, J., Lawlor, J., and Olney, J., concurred.

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

THE COURT.

[1] We entertain no doubt of the power of the court in divorce actions to modify its orders for the payment to the wife of money necessary to enable her to support herself during the pendency of the action, or to enable her to prosecute or defend the action, as the circumstances with regard to necessity change. As to orders for the payment of money for support there has never been any question in this behalf, and there is no difference in principle with relation to money to be paid to her for the purpose of en[584]*584abling her to pay attorneys. The superior court did not exceed its jurisdiction in this matter.

The application for a writ of certiorari is denied.

Angellotti, C. J., Lennon, J., Wilbur, J., Sloane, J., Lawlor, J., and Olney, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 Cal. 583, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nightingale-v-superior-court-of-san-francisco-cal-1920.