Sharon v. Sharon
Citations
- 67 Cal. 185
- 7 P. 456
- 1885 Cal. LEXIS 596
Syllabus
<p>Divorob—Action in Equity—Supreme Court—Jurisdiction.—An action for divorce is a case in equity within the meaning of the clause of the Constitution conferring appellate jurisdiction on the Supreme Court.</p> <p>Id,—Action to Establish Marriage. —An action brought under section 78 of the Civil Code for the purpose of determining the validity of a disputed marriage is in its nature a suit in equity, and from the judgment therein an appeal lies to tho Supreme Court.</p> <p>Id.—Order for Alimony and Counsel Pees Appealable—Pinal Judgment. —In an action for divorce, an order made pendente lite, for the payment by the husband to the wife of temporary alimony and counsel fees, is in effect a final judgment, and therefore appealable. Such an order cannot be reviewed on an appeal from the judgment decreeing a divorce.</p> <p>Id. — Staying Proceedings on Order — Sufficiency of Undertaking. —The order required the defendant to pay to the plaintiff, on or before the 9th day of March, 1885, the sum of S7,500 as alimony, and thereafter the sum of $2,500 monthly, until the further order of the court; it also required the defendant to pay the sum of 555,000 as counsel fees. On appeal from the order, the defendant filed an undertaking to stay proceedings in the sum of §805,000, being double the amount of tho gross sums allowed for alimony and counsel fees, and double the amount of the monthly payments for the period of three years, assumed to be the period during which the appeal would probably be pending. Held, that the undertaking was sufficient to stay proceedings on the order pending tho appeal.</p>
Judges: McKee, Myrick, Ross, Sharpstein, Thornton
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
62 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Lester v. LennaneCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2000-10-31· cited 154×
- De Burgh v. De BurghCalifornia Supreme Court· 1952-11-25· cited 153×
- In Re Marriage of SkelleyCalifornia Supreme Court· 1976-11-29· cited 146×
- Meehan v. HoppsCalifornia Supreme Court· 1955-10-07· cited 102×
- Bordeaux v. BordeauxMontana Supreme Court· 1905-03-13· cited 86×
- Banning v. NewdowCalifornia Court of Appeal· 2004-06-14· cited 65×
- In re DoleHawaii Supreme Court· 1903-01-21· cited 65×
- People v. ColemanCalifornia Supreme Court· 1854-01-15· cited 63×
- Bozovichar v. StateIndiana Supreme Court· 1952-02-13· cited 47×
- Westamerica Bank v. Mbg Industries, Inc.California Court of Appeal· 2007-12-19· cited 47×
- Morton v. BroderickCalifornia Supreme Court· 1897-10-06· cited 44×
- Watford v. StateIndiana Supreme Court· 1979-01-29· cited 37×
- Rector v. United StatesEighth Circuit· 1927-05-28· cited 35×
- People v. EdwardsCalifornia Supreme Court· 1892-02-02· cited 34×
- Wadsworth v. WadsworthCalifornia Supreme Court· 1889-11-09· cited 31×
- People v. MimsCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1955-11-09· cited 29×
- Union Oil Co. v. Reconstruction Oil Co.California Supreme Court· 1935-10-30· cited 29×
- Southern Pacific Co. v. OppenheimerCalifornia Supreme Court· 1960-10-31· cited 29×
- State ex rel. Heinze v. District Court of the Second Judicial DistrictMontana Supreme Court· 1903-05-25· cited 27×
- Dimon v. DimonCalifornia Supreme Court· 1953-03-17· cited 26×
Cites
39 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Barber v. Barber Ex Rel. CronkhiteSupreme Court· 1859-03-11· cited 538×
- Emeric v. AlvaradoCalifornia Supreme Court· 1884-01-31· cited 83×
- People v. ColemanCalifornia Supreme Court· 1854-01-15· cited 63×
- People v. MarkhamCalifornia Supreme Court· 1883-09-21· cited 56×
- Wightman v. WightmanNew York Court of Chancery· 1820-02-29· cited 54×
- Perky v. PerryNew York Court of Chancery· 1831-07-19· cited 44×
- Conant v. ConantCalifornia Supreme Court· 1858-07-01· cited 42×
- Blake v. BlakeIllinois Supreme Court· 1875-09-15· cited 40×
- Ex parte PerkinsCalifornia Supreme Court· 1861-07-01· cited 39×
- Appeal of S. O. HoughtonCalifornia Supreme Court· 1871-10-15· cited 31×
- People v. JordanCalifornia Supreme Court· 1884-10-08· cited 27×
- Knowles v. YeatesCalifornia Supreme Court· 1866-07-01· cited 25×
- Ely v. ElyIllinois Supreme Court· 1875-09-15· cited 23×
- Hopkins v. HopkinsWisconsin Supreme Court· 1875-08-15· cited 21×
- Kashaw v. KashawCalifornia Supreme Court· 1853-10-15· cited 19×
- Williamson v. WilliamsonNew York Court of Chancery· 1815-07-17· cited 19×
- Ex parte CottrellCalifornia Supreme Court· 1881-07-15· cited 17×
- Hecht v. HechtSupreme Court of Arkansas· 1872-12-15· cited 17×
- Bauman v. BaumanSupreme Court of Arkansas· 1857-01-15· cited 15×
- Brown v. BrownCalifornia Supreme Court· 1882-06-13· cited 12×
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.