McMullin v. McMullin
Citations
- 123 Cal. 653
- 56 P. 554
- 1899 Cal. LEXIS 1133
Syllabus
<p>Maintenance without Divorce—Cube of Desertion—Bona Fide Offer op Husband Pendente Lite—Defeat of Action.—An action by a wife for permanent maintenance by the husband without divorce, is defeated, where the desertion by the husband is cured pendente lite, by a bona fide offer of the husband to provide a home for the wife at any reasonable place of her own choosing, and to return and live with her as husband and wife, although such offer is made more than one year after the desertion.</p> <p>Id.—Limited Divorce.—To enforce, the duty of support against a defendant who seeks in good faith to fulfill his obligations, and at the same time to exonerate the plaintiff from the correlative duty of dwelling with the defendant at some reasonable place of abode, would be the granting of a limited divorce, for which our law makes no provision.</p> <p>Id.—Good Faith of Offer—Question of Fact—Duty of Wife.—The good faith of the offer of the husband is a question of fact, and where his good faith is ascertained as a fact it is the duty of the wife to test his professions by acceptance, and she cannot capriciously refuse to be satisfied of the good faith of his offer. If he thereafter proves derelict, her complaisance will not prejudice her claims upon him.</p> <p>Id.—Solicitation of Condonation.—A bona fide offer by the deserting husband to return and provide a home for the wife, and expressing his willingness for a reconciliation, and offering to fulfill the marriage contract, with a request to her to do likewise, implies a request for conditional forgiveness which is condonation, and involves a solicitation of condonation for his offense of desertion.</p>
Judges: Britt
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
5 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Monroe v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court· 1946-06-25· cited 30×
- Appleton v. AppletonWashington Supreme Court· 1917-07-05· cited 13×
- O'Connor v. O'ConnorCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1949-04-07· cited 9×
- Olsen v. OlsenD. Alaska· 1909-06-20· cited 1×
- Willardson v. WillardsonUtah Supreme Court· 1918-04-19· cited 1×
Cites
8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Johnson v. JohnsonIllinois Supreme Court· 1888-05-09· cited 61×
- Peyre v. PeyreCalifornia Supreme Court· 1889-05-30· cited 24×
- Hardy v. HardyCalifornia Supreme Court· 1893-01-05· cited 18×
- Almond v. AlmondCourt of Appeals of Virginia· 1827-07-21· cited 18×
- Hagle v. HagleCalifornia Supreme Court· 1888-01-28· cited 15×
- Wagner v. WagnerCalifornia Supreme Court· 1894-10-02· cited 11×
- Porter v. PorterIllinois Supreme Court· 1896-03-28· cited 6×
- Schraeder v. SchraederAppellate Court of Illinois· 1888-04-11· 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.