Sharon v. Sharon
Citations
- 75 Cal. 1
- 16 P. 345
- 1888 Cal. LEXIS 480
Syllabus
<p>Marriage — Agreement for—Promise to Keep Secret. —An agreement between a man and a woman to become husband and wife, made per verba da prwscnti, is not invalidated by the fact that it contains a collateral promise by one of the parties not to make the marriage known until a future date, without the consent of the other.</p> <p>Id. —Unsolemnized Marriage—Present Consent to Marry—Assumption of Marital Rights and Duties — Consummation.—Under section 35 of the Civil Code, it is not necessary to the validity of a marriage not attended by a solemnization that the present consent to marry should he followed by a public mutual assumption of marital rights and duties. A present consent to marry, followed by a consummation, is sufficient to , constitute the marriage.</p> <p>Id.—Divorce — Counsel Fees must be Made Payable to Wife.— Under section 137 of the Civil Code, the money necessary to enable a wife to prosecute or defend an action of divorce should be ordered paid by the husband directly to her, and the court has no power to order it paid directly to her attorneys.</p> <p>Id. — Unreasonable Counsel Fees. — Under the circumstances of the case, the sum of fifty-five thousand dollars ordered to be paid by the husband to the wife’s attorneys as counsel fees, held, excessive, and an abuse of the discretion of the court, and that the number of attorneys employed by the wife to prosecute the action was unnecessarily large.</p> <p>Id. — Agreement by Attorney to Act on Contingency.—Pending an action for divorce, the wife has no necessity entitling her to an allowance for counsel fees, when her attorneys are faithfully and satisfactorily acting for her in pursuance of an agreement whereby they have, as compensation for their services, a contingent interest in the result of the litigation.</p> <p>Id. — Alimony—Reasonableness of Allowance. — The action was brought by a wife for a divorce, and the answer denied the marriage. On the trial, the evidence showed that the marriage had
Judges: McFarland, McKinstry, Sharpstein, Temple, Thornton
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
81 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Continental Baking Co. v. KatzCalifornia Supreme Court· 1968-04-30· cited 253×
- Flannery v. PrenticeCalifornia Supreme Court· 2001-08-13· cited 141×
- Perez v. SharpCalifornia Supreme Court· 1948-10-01· cited 126×
- Andre v. MorrowIdaho Supreme Court· 1984-04-13· cited 86×
- Hulett v. CareySupreme Court of Minnesota· 1896-11-27· cited 66×
- Hall v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court· 1955-10-28· cited 59×
- Brown v. GordonCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1966-03-09· cited 52×
- Howard v. LindmierWyoming Supreme Court· 1950-02-21· cited 50×
- Hite v. HiteCalifornia Supreme Court· 1899-05-13· cited 45×
- Reeves & Co. v. RussellNorth Dakota Supreme Court· 1914-05-08· cited 44×
- Carbone v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court· 1941-10-17· cited 43×
- People v. HolifieldCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1988-11-04· cited 42×
- In re Estate of LevinsonCalifornia Supreme Court· 1895-08-06· cited 42×
- McConnell v. McConnellSupreme Court of Arkansas· 1911-03-13· cited 37×
- Patton v. PattonCalifornia Supreme Court· 1948-09-01· cited 34×
- Bohnert v. BohnertCalifornia Supreme Court· 1891-09-28· cited 32×
- Garver v. ThomanArizona Supreme Court· 1913-10-08· cited 31×
- Collins v. Superior CourtArizona Supreme Court· 1936-11-16· cited 30×
- Henry v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court· 1892-03-10· cited 29×
- Independent Steel & Wire Co. v. New Mexico Cent. R.New Mexico Supreme Court· 1918-12-27· cited 29×
Cites
7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- State Ex Rel. Markley v. BaldwinSupreme Court· 1884-12-15· cited 153×
- Jackson, ex rel. Dies v. WinneNew York Supreme Court· 1831-05-15· cited 48×
- Ex Parte KoserCalifornia Supreme Court· 1882-03-10· cited 27×
- Reynolds v. ReynoldsCalifornia Supreme Court· 1885-06-29· cited 21×
- Estate of Briswalter v. HellmanCalifornia Supreme Court· 1887-02-23· cited 8×
- Williams v. PeopleNew York Supreme Court· 1865-09-18· cited 5×
- Jaques v. Public AdministratorNew York Surrogate's Court· 1851-05-15· cited 2×
Other cases named Sharon v. Sharon
13 other CourtListener records share this case name.
- Sharon v. SharonCalifornia Supreme Court· 1885-06-29· cited 105×
- Sharon v. SharonCalifornia Supreme Court· 1885-12-31· cited 15×
- Sharon v. SharonCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin· 1993-07-28· cited 10×
- Sharon v. SharonDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 2003-11-21· cited 9×
- Sharon v. SharonCalifornia Supreme Court· 1885-11-20· cited 9×
- Sharon v. SharonCalifornia Supreme Court· 1890-06-10· cited 9×
- Sharon v. SharonDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 2005-09-23· cited 2×
- Sharon v. SharonCalifornia Supreme Court· 1888-09-22· cited 2×
- Sharon v. SharonCalifornia Supreme Court· 1890-06-10· cited 2×
- Sharon v. SharonDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 2010-05-07· cited 1×
- Sharon v. SharonSupreme Court of Florida· 2008-01-17· cited 1×
- Sharon v. SharonNew York Supreme Court· 1990-06-21· cited 1×
- Sharon v. SharonDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 2008-04-02
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.