Palmanteer v. Palmanteer

California Supreme Court

Palmanteer v. Palmanteer

81 P.2d 910, 11 Cal. 2d 570, 1938 Cal. LEXIS 330

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 25, 1938

DocketL. A. 16545

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 81 P.2d 910 (Palmanteer v. Palmanteer) 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

Palmanteer v. Palmanteer, 81 P.2d 910, 11 Cal. 2d 570, 1938 Cal. LEXIS 330 (Cal. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

WASTE, C. J.

This is an appeal by defendant from an interlocutory decree in favor of plaintiff in an action for divorce on the ground of extreme cruelty. Plaintiff moves this court to dismiss the appeal or affirm the decree.

No substantial question is presented. Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings and decree. The evidence was in direct conflict. This eon *571 flict was resolved in favor of plaintiff by the trial court and there is no reason to disturb its conclusion. Plaintiff alleged and testified to the commission against him of four specific acts of cruelty, one of which occurred several years after he and defendant had- separated. The commission of this one act only was corroborated by testimony other than that of the parties. Appellant urges that such corroboration was not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of section 130 of the Civil Code. The contention is without merit. Acts of cruelty committed subsequent to the separation of a husband and wife may afford proper grounds for divorce. (Cardinale v. Cardinale, 8 Cal. (2d) 762, 768 [68 Pac. (2d) 351]; Stitt v. Stitt, 8 Cal. (2d) 450 [65 Pac. (2d) 1297]; MacDonald v. MacDonald, 155 Cal. 665, 672, 673 [102 Pac. 927, 25 L. R A. (N. S.) 45].) The evidence in this case as a whole, including the testimony corroborating commission of one of the four alleged acts of cruelty, contains sufficient support for the findings and decree. (5 Cal. Jur. Supp., secs. 95, 96, p. 271 et seq. and cases cited.)

The decree is affirmed.

Shenk, J., Houser, J., Seawell, J., Langdon, J., Edmonds, J., and Curtis, J., concurred.

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

WASTE, C. J.

This is an appeal by defendant from an interlocutory decree in favor of plaintiff in an action for divorce on the ground of extreme cruelty. Plaintiff moves this court to dismiss the appeal or affirm the decree.

No substantial question is presented. Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings and decree. The evidence was in direct conflict. This eon *571 flict was resolved in favor of plaintiff by the trial court and there is no reason to disturb its conclusion. Plaintiff alleged and testified to the commission against him of four specific acts of cruelty, one of which occurred several years after he and defendant had- separated. The commission of this one act only was corroborated by testimony other than that of the parties. Appellant urges that such corroboration was not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of section 130 of the Civil Code. The contention is without merit. Acts of cruelty committed subsequent to the separation of a husband and wife may afford proper grounds for divorce. (Cardinale v. Cardinale, 8 Cal. (2d) 762, 768 [68 Pac. (2d) 351]; Stitt v. Stitt, 8 Cal. (2d) 450 [65 Pac. (2d) 1297]; MacDonald v. MacDonald, 155 Cal. 665, 672, 673 [102 Pac. 927, 25 L. R A. (N. S.) 45].) The evidence in this case as a whole, including the testimony corroborating commission of one of the four alleged acts of cruelty, contains sufficient support for the findings and decree. (5 Cal. Jur. Supp., secs. 95, 96, p. 271 et seq. and cases cited.)

The decree is affirmed.

Shenk, J., Houser, J., Seawell, J., Langdon, J., Edmonds, J., and Curtis, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 P.2d 910, 11 Cal. 2d 570, 1938 Cal. LEXIS 330, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/palmanteer-v-palmanteer-cal-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack