Reilly v. Reilly
This text of 60 Cal. 624 (Reilly v. Reilly) 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.
Opinion
This is a motion made in this Court for'alimony pending an appeal. We do not think any such jurisdiction is vested in this Court. Only appellate jurisdiction is conferred on this tribunal by the organic law defining its jurisdiction, and the jurisdiction invoked here is, in our view, original. It is true that power is also vested in this Court to issue all writs necessary or proper to the complete exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. But no writ is necessary or proper here. The appellate jurisdiction can be exercised without it. The power over this matter is vested in the Superior Court, even pending an appeal. The appeal does not take away its jurisdiction, as the matter is not affected by the judgment appealed from. (C. C. P., 946.) The cause is still pending in the Superior Court for the purpose sought to be attained by this motion.
The motion is denied.
Myrick and Sharpstein, JJ., concurred.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
60 Cal. 624, 1882 Cal. LEXIS 521, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reilly-v-reilly-cal-1882.