McKay v. McKay
Citations
- 125 Cal. 65
- 57 P. 677
- 1899 Cal. LEXIS 801
Syllabus
<p>Divorce—Maintenance of Children—Omission in Decree—Subsequent Order—Jurisdiction.—In an action for divorce, where the custody of the children was awarded to the wife without any provision in the decree for their maintenance, the court, though having no jurisdiction to act subsequently .under section 139 of the Civil Code, has jurisdiction, under section 138 of that code, to give a subsequent direction “for the custody, care, and education of the children,” and to provide for the expenses reasonably to be incurred for their “care and education.”</p> <p>Id.—Construction of Code—Prospective Action.—The provisions of section 13S of the Civil Code are in their nature prospective; and the use of the term “direction” implies that the action of the court is to he limited to the “care and education” which the children are subsequently to receive under its direction.</p> <p>Id.—Limited Power of Court—Benefit of Children—Reimbursement of Past Expenses.—The jurisdiction retained by the court under section 138 of the Civil Code is to he exercised only in behalf of the children; and if they have been already sufficiently cared for by the voluntary act of the mother, or of other persons, the court is not empowered, in an order made for the first time after judgment, to compel the father to reimburse them for these past expenses.</p> <p>Ld.—Voluntary Expenses by Stepfather—Presumption—Reimbursement not Required.—Where it appears that subsequently to the decree and to the remarriage of the divorced wife, the children were received into the family of the stepfather, and the expenses of their care and education were voluntarily incurred by him, it must be presumed, under section 209 of the Civil Code, that he supported them as a parent, and they are not liable to him for their support. The father is not bound to reimburse the stepfather therefor; and the court cannot order such reimburse-' ment under section 138 of the Civil Code.</p>
Judges: Harrison
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
12 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Steed v. Imperial AirlinesCalifornia Supreme Court· 1974-07-25· cited 67×
- Monroe v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court· 1946-06-25· cited 30×
- Dimon v. DimonCalifornia Supreme Court· 1953-03-17· cited 26×
- Davis v. DavisCalifornia Supreme Court· 1968-02-28· cited 25×
- In Re CarboniCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1941-08-27· cited 22×
- Elkins v. ElkinsDistrict of Columbia· 1924-05-05· cited 15×
- McGregor v. McGregorSupreme Court of Colorado· 1912-01-15· cited 13×
- In Re Marriage of FordCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1972-03-15· cited 10×
- Washington v. WashingtonCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1958-08-25· cited 8×
- Cormana v. NaronIdaho Supreme Court· 1923-07-05· cited 6×
- Merchants National Bank v. Continental National BankCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1929-04-26· cited 3×
- McCarthy v. McCarthyCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1963-06-06· cited 2×
Cites
9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Howell v. HowellCalifornia Supreme Court· 1894-09-10· cited 83×
- Campbell v. CampbellWisconsin Supreme Court· 1875-01-15· cited 64×
- Loveren v. LoverenCalifornia Supreme Court· 1894-12-23· cited 44×
- Ramsey v. RamseyIndiana Supreme Court· 1889-12-10· cited 41×
- Holt v. HoltSupreme Court of Arkansas· 1883-11-15· cited 30×
- Finch v. FinchSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1852-06-15· cited 29×
- Lacey v. LaceyCalifornia Supreme Court· 1895-07-09· cited 21×
- McKay v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court· 1898-02-19· cited 10×
- Burritt v. BurrittNew York Supreme Court· 1859-03-07· cited 8×
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.