Smith v. Superior Court

82 P. 79, 147 Cal. 336, 1905 Cal. LEXIS 397
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 8, 1905
DocketS.F. No. 4353.
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 82 P. 79 (Smith v. Superior Court) 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
Smith v. Superior Court, 82 P. 79, 147 Cal. 336, 1905 Cal. LEXIS 397 (Cal. 1905).

Opinion

THE COURT.

This is a petition for a writ of mandate requiring the superior court to enter a final decree of divorce.

In an action by petitioner against her husband the court heard the evidence, and an order was entered in its minutes reciting the submission and consideration of the cause, and adding: “It is ordered by the court that an interlocutory decree of divorce be entered herein in favor of the plaintiff on grounds of defendant’s willful neglect and desertion.” Nothing further was done. No findings were filed and no decree ever entered in the judgment-book.

More than a year after the entry in the court minutes above quoted, petitioner, upon proper notice, moved the court to enter a final decree, which motion was denied.

These being the facts, the petition for the writ of mandate must be denied. We hold that upon the proper construction of section 132 of the Civil Code, as recently amended, an interlocutory decree of divorce must be entered in the judgment-book one year before a final decree can be granted, and under section 131 the right of appeal from the interlocutory decree continues for six months after such entry.

Writ denied.

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

Related

People v. Gordon
234 P.2d 287 (California Court of Appeal, 1951)
Shannon v. General Petroleum Corp.
118 P.2d 881 (California Court of Appeal, 1941)
Shannon v. Wilson
101 P.2d 116 (California Court of Appeal, 1940)
Hardy v. Rosenthal
38 P.2d 412 (California Court of Appeal, 1934)
Southern Pacific R.R. Co. v. Stibbens
285 P. 374 (California Court of Appeal, 1930)
Los Angeles Railway Corp. v. Flood Control District
248 P. 532 (California Court of Appeal, 1926)
Cockerill v. Tobin
209 P. 1022 (California Court of Appeal, 1922)
Wilson v. Pacific Electric Railway Co.
168 P. 128 (California Supreme Court, 1917)
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. v. Reclamation Dist. No. 404
159 P. 430 (California Supreme Court, 1916)
Schaffer v. Smith
147 P. 976 (California Supreme Court, 1915)
Miller & Lux Inc. v. Enter. Canal & Land Co.
147 P. 567 (California Supreme Court, 1915)
San Pedro, Los Angeles & Salt Lake Railroad v. Pillsbury
139 P. 669 (California Court of Appeal, 1914)
McNeil v. City of South Pasadena
135 P. 32 (California Supreme Court, 1913)
Los Angeles Pacific Co. v. Hubbard
121 P. 306 (California Court of Appeal, 1911)
Fox v. Workman
100 P. 246 (California Supreme Court, 1909)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
82 P. 79, 147 Cal. 336, 1905 Cal. LEXIS 397, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-superior-court-cal-1905.