Hardy v. Hardy
Citations
- 97 Cal. 125
- 31 P. 906
- 1893 Cal. LEXIS 497
Syllabus
<p>Husband and Wife — Action for Permanent Alimony — Desertion by Husband. — The action for permanent maintenance of a wife by the husband, without a divorce, under section 137 of the Civil Code, can only be based upon the ground of desertion by the husband; ancj proof of willful desertion by him, or that, by reason of his cruelty or threats of bodily harm, she was forced to leave the family dwelling-place, is essential to support the action.</p> <p>Id. — Wife must be without Fault — Defense to Action. — It is essential that the wife who seeks permanent alimony should be without fault on her own part; and the same grounds which would justify the husband in leaving her and living separate from her, or which would be a sufficient defense to any action by her for a divorce from him, will be a defense to this action; and if, in case of his desertion of her, her conduct after such desertion has been such as to forfeit her right to be received as his wife, she cannot maintain the action.</p> <p>Id. — Adultery of Wife — Demand for Reception and Support — Refusal not Desertion. — A wife who has left her husband by abandoning the family dwelling-house, and remained away for more than twenty-seven years, having lived in adultery, under an assumed contract marriage, with another man, with whom she lived until his death, has thereby forfeited all right to be recognized or received by the husband as his wife; and the failure of the husband thereafter to comply with a demand of the wife that he should receive and support her as his wife does not constitute desertion upon his part.</p> <p>Id.—Belief of Divorce Immaterial.—The fact that the wife, at the time she began to live in adultery, had been informed by the man with whom she was living, and believed, that her husband had procured a divorce from her, does not exonerate her from the consequences of her - act.</p> <p>Id. — Action for Alimonv Independent of Right of Divorce.—The right of a wife to maintain an action against her h
Judges: Harrison
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
8 cases in this archive cite this case.
- In re DoleHawaii Supreme Court· 1903-01-21· cited 65×
- McMullin v. McMullinCalifornia Supreme Court· 1899-03-04· cited 18×
- Erganian v. BrightmanCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1936-05-08· cited 12×
- Wagner v. WagnerCalifornia Supreme Court· 1894-10-02· cited 11×
- Hilton v. Second Judicial District Court ex rel. County of WashoeNevada Supreme Court· 1919-07-15· cited 9×
- Morrison v. J. D. WillhoitCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1944-02-08· cited 8×
- Benton v. BentonCalifornia Supreme Court· 1898-11-21· cited 7×
- Mohr v. MohrCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1939-06-08· cited 3×
Cites
3 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.