Jones v. Jones
Citations
- 75 Wash. 50
- 134 P. 528
- 1913 Wash. LEXIS 2200
Syllabus
<p>Appeal — Dismissal—Motions—Affidavits. Upon motion to dismiss an appeal, facts occurring subsequent to- the signing and entering of the judgment appealed from, and not in dispute, may be shown by affidavits.</p> <p>Divorce — Alimony—Enforcement of Order — Notice—Contempt. Where, after announcement of a decree of divorce directing the husband, within a day fixed, to make a deed of property awarded the wife or suffer judgment in a specified sum, the husband and his attorney left the courtroom, he is not bound by a subsequent announcement in his absence withdrawing the optional feature of the deed, and is not guilty of contempt in failing to make the deed within the time limited.</p> <p>Divorce — Temporary Injunction — Violation — Dissolution—-Final Judgment — Contempt. Where interlocutory orders in a divorce action, restraining the plaintiff from leaving the jurisdiction of the court and requiring him to make a deed of certain property awarded to the defendant, are not carried into the final judgment, they are of no force and plaintiff cannot be punished for contempt for a violation of the orders before entry of the final judgment; even though the final judgment recited that he was in contempt, since such recital did not continue the orders in force.</p> <p>Appeal — Dismissal—Right to Appeal — Inconsistent Position Since Judgment — Contempt—Divorce. The fact that a husband, divorced by the superior court of this state and enjoined from making any claim to property in British. Columbia awarded the wife, defended an action brought by the wife in British Columbia to enforce the divorce decree, denying the jurisdiction of the courts of this state and asserting title to the property, is not ground for the dismissal of his pending appeal from the decree of divorce, even though he commenced the divorce action asserting jurisdiction in the courts of this state, and even if his conduct in asserting title was contumacious; since appeal from a judgment is a matter of right al
Judges: Main, Parker
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
5 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Lowell Bar Ass'n v. LoebMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1943-12-08· cited 189×
- State v. MosleyWashington Supreme Court· 1974-12-05· cited 19×
- New Jersey Zinc Co. v. Local 890 of International Union of Mine, Mill & Smelter WorkersNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1952-06-12· cited 8×
- Deaton v. Fifth Third Union Trust Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976)· 1933-12-12· cited 3×
- Warder v. ShufeldtNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1936-06-22· cited 3×
Cites
9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Allen v. GeorgiaSupreme Court· 1897-03-15· cited 153×
- People v. RedingerCalifornia Supreme Court· 1880-07-01· cited 49×
- Hice v. OrrWashington Supreme Court· 1896-12-11· cited 34×
- State v. HandyWashington Supreme Court· 1902-03-01· cited 25×
- Wood v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court· 1900-08-20· cited 24×
- Sweeney v. HanleyNinth Circuit· 1903-11-09· cited 24×
- Griffith v. GriffithWashington Supreme Court· 1912-11-12· cited 12×
- People ex rel. Crymble v. HortonAppellate Court of Illinois· 1892-12-08· cited 9×
- Kelso v. American Investment & Improvement Co.Washington Supreme Court· 1907-12-06· cited 5×
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.