Holcomb v. Holcomb
Citations
- 49 Wash. 498
- 95 P. 1091
- 1908 Wash. LEXIS 608
Syllabus
<p>Courts — Jurisdiction—Appellate Courts — Divorce — Alimony Pending Appeal. The supreme court has original jurisdiction to entertain an application for temporary • alimony, attorney’s fees and suit money pending an appeal from a judgment of divorce in favor of a wife, under the statutes requiring a trial ele novo on appeal and declaring that the supreme court shall be possessed of the whole case as fully as the trial court was, and under Const, art. 4, § 4, giving the supreme court power to issue all writs necessary and proper to the complete exercise of appellate and revisory jurisdiction (Mount, Rudkin, and Fullerton, JJ., dissenting).</p> <p>Divorce — Alimony—Suit Money — Pending Appeal. A proper case for the allowance of suit money and alimony pending appeal is shown where the wife secured a judgment of divorce, with alimony, which was superseded on the husband's appeal from the allowance of alimony, and the wife was without means-of support for herself and child.</p> <p>Divorce — Suit Money Pending Appeal. In fixing suit money and attorney’s fees pending appeal in a divorce case, the supreme court will grant only a fair amount for necessary expenses, leaving the ultimate amount of the attorney’s fees to the final adjudication of the case.</p> <p>Ne Exeat — Grounds—Showing—Suiticiency—Divorce. A writ of ne exeat preventing an appellant in a divorce case from leaving the state pending the appeal will not be granted, in the absence of a sufficient showing that he is about to do so, and where he has given a supersedeas bond on appeal, and much of the property involved is real estate which cannot be conveyed without consent of the wife.</p>
Judges: Mount, Root
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
7 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Buehler v. BuehlerNevada Supreme Court· 1915-07-15· cited 13×
- Griffith v. GriffithWashington Supreme Court· 1912-11-12· cited 12×
- Sullivan v. SullivanWashington Supreme Court· 1908-05-29· cited 8×
- Gust v. GustWashington Supreme Court· 1912-06-26· cited 7×
- Gallagher v. GallagherWashington Supreme Court· 1911-10-13· cited 5×
- State v. McCollumWashington Supreme Court· 1943-03-16· cited 4×
- State ex rel. Glesin v. Superior CourtWashington Supreme Court· 1923-06-27· cited 1×
Cites
21 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Prine v. PrineSupreme Court of Florida· 1895-06-15· cited 35×
- Wagner v. WagnerSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1886-12-21· cited 35×
- Kimble v. KimbleWashington Supreme Court· 1897-05-06· cited 34×
- Jenkins v. JenkinsIllinois Supreme Court· 1878-09-15· cited 33×
- Rohrback v. RohrbackCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1892-02-04· cited 21×
- Reilly v. ReillyCalifornia Supreme Court· 1882-06-29· cited 20×
- Ex parte KingSupreme Court of Alabama· 1855-06-15· cited 20×
- Pennsylvania Railroad v. GoodenoughSupreme Court of New Jersey· 1893-06-15· cited 20×
- Willey v. WilleyWashington Supreme Court· 1900-01-27· cited 18×
- Krause v. KrauseWisconsin Supreme Court· 1868-06-15· cited 13×
- Storke v. StorkeCalifornia Supreme Court· 1893-10-06· cited 11×
- Hall v. HallMississippi Supreme Court· 1900-03-15· cited 11×
- Weishaupt v. WeishauptWisconsin Supreme Court· 1871-01-15· cited 10×
- Hunter v. HunterIllinois Supreme Court· 1881-09-15· cited 9×
- State ex rel. Holcomb v. YakeyWashington Supreme Court· 1908-02-10· cited 6×
- Callahan v. CallahanNebraska Supreme Court· 1878-01-15· cited 6×
- Kesler v. KeslerIndiana Supreme Court· 1872-05-15· cited 5×
- Bachelor v. BachelorWashington Supreme Court· 1903-01-07· cited 3×
- Pollock v. PollockSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1895-08-15· cited 3×
- Peavey v. PeaveySupreme Court of Iowa· 1888-12-22· cited 3×
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.