Ex parte Perkins
Citations
- 18 Cal. 60
Syllabus
<p>Whebe, in the regular course of judicial proceedings before a Court of general jurisdiction, a party, having notice of the proceedings, has been ordered by the judgment of the Court to pay a certain sum of money, and in default of obedience to the order, has been committed for contempt, he cannot, on application to the Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus, question the regularity of the proceedings of the Court below, nor the propriety of the judgment on the facts. The power of the Court below to make the order is the only question.</p> <p>As to the regularity of the proceedings and the propriety of the order, the Supreme Court is not an appellate Court, but a Court of original special jurisdiction to discharge the applicant when no legal cause of detention exists.</p> <p>In suit for divorce the Court has power to order the husband to pay money to the wife for her support during the litigation, and for coifnsel fees and other legal expenses; and such order may be enforced by imprisonment for contempt in case of refusal to pay.</p> <p>A sum so ordered to be paid is not a debt within that article of our Constitution which prohibits imprisonment for debt except for fraud. The husband is bound to support the wife, and this duty, though not technically a debt, is an imperfect obligation which may be enforced by order of Court compelling him to pay her money.</p>
Judges: Baldwin
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
23 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Sharon v. SharonCalifornia Supreme Court· 1885-06-29· cited 105×
- Moss v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court· 1998-02-02· cited 76×
- Ex parte SpencerCalifornia Supreme Court· 1890-03-24· cited 75×
- Miller v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court· 1937-10-27· cited 73×
- Ex parte HollisCalifornia Supreme Court· 1881-07-15· cited 54×
- Golden Gate Consolidated Hydraulic Mining Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court· 1884-04-30· cited 50×
- State v. KnightSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1893-02-15· cited 47×
- Schooley v. SchooleySupreme Court of Iowa· 1918-10-25· cited 32×
- State ex rel. Tolls v. TollsOregon Supreme Court· 1938-12-13· cited 28×
- Ex parte GordanCalifornia Supreme Court· 1892-07-23· cited 27×
- Livingston v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court· 1897-08-05· cited 26×
- Adams v. AdamsSupreme Court of New Jersey· 1912-04-19· cited 21×
- Festervand v. LasterLouisiana Court of Appeal· 1930-11-07· cited 17×
- In Re HendricksCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1970-03-23· cited 16×
- Ex parte CottrellCalifornia Supreme Court· 1881-07-15· cited 16×
- Villa v. Corte de Distrito de San JuanSupreme Court of Puerto Rico· 1933-12-11· cited 16×
- Crider v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1993-04-27· cited 15×
- Wyatt v. WyattIdaho Supreme Court· 1886-03-05· cited 12×
- In Re IrishIdaho Supreme Court· 1932-02-18· cited 8×
- State ex rel. Mears v. BarnesNorth Dakota Supreme Court· 1895-12-27· cited 4×
Cites
2 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.