Wolff v. Wolff
Citations
- 102 Cal. 433
- 36 P. 767
- 1894 Cal. LEXIS 664
Syllabus
<p>Divorce—Extreme Cruelty—Evidence—Corroboration of Plaintiff. Where the testimony of the plaintiff, in an action for divorce upon the ground of extreme cruelty, is sufficiently corroborated as to certain acts and declarations sufficient to constitute extreme cruelty, it is not material or necessary that her testimony should he corroborated as to all other distinct acts of cruelty alleged in the complaint.</p> <p>Id.—Separation of Wife From Husband—Condonation—Promise to Return.—A voluntary promise by the wife, after separation from the husband on account of his extreme cruelty, to return to, and live with, him does not alone constitute condonation, if such promise is not kept, and it has not the effect to remit his offenses nor to restore him to marital rights.</p> <p>Id.—Alimony—Value of Defendant’s Property—Evasive Answer— Admitted Facts—Presumption.—An answer which is clearly evasive of the allegations of the complaint as to¿defendant’s income, and the value of his property, raises no issue upon such allegations; but affirmative allegations of the answer of material probative facts hearing upon the issue as to the proper amount of alimony to be allowed for the support of the plaintiff and her child, when admitted by plaintiff’s attorney, must be presumed to have been considered by the court for the purpose of estimating and. determining what was a suitable allowance for such support,</p> <p>Id.—Allowance of Permanent Alimony—Discretion—Review Upon Appeal.—An allowance of permanent alimony is in the discretion of the court, and will not be reversed upon appeal, where upon the whole cause it does not appear that the court abused its discretion in allowing the amount.</p> <p>Id.—Future Modification.—It is within the power and discretion of the court to modify an allowance of permanent alimony in the future, if just cause appears for such modification.</p>
Judges: Beatty
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
5 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Andrews v. AndrewsCalifornia Supreme Court· 1898-02-24· cited 49×
- Melny v. MelnyCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1949-03-18· cited 14×
- McGregor v. McGregorSupreme Court of Colorado· 1912-01-15· cited 13×
- Gleason v. GleasonCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1936-04-15· cited 6×
- Cormana v. NaronIdaho Supreme Court· 1923-07-05· cited 6×
Cites
2 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
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.