TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Walker v. Walker

HARRY C. WALKER, Appellant, v. LUELLA WALKER, Respondent

Walker v. Walker, 213 P. 967 (Cal. 1923)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 8, 1923
Docket
No. L. A. No. 6741.
Judges
Waste
Citations
213 P. 967190 Cal. 5751923 Cal. LEXIS 579

Opinion of the Court — Waste

WASTE, J.

Appellant, who is the plaintiff, brought an action against the respondent, who is his wife, for a divorce. After answer Sled and due proceedings therefor had, the court made an order that appellant pay to respondent the sum of one hundred dollars on account of court costs and attorney’s fees incurred in defense of the action. This appeal, which is without merit, is from that order.

The appellant alleged in his complaint that he and the respondent intermarried at the place and time stated “and ever since said date last mentioned have been and now are *576 husband and wife.” The trial court found that the defendant was the wife of plaintiff, as alleged by him. On the hearing of the motion it was established, in fact the appellant admitted, that he was well able to pay the costs and attorney’s fees awarded by the court, and the court found that the defendant was wholly without means. Under such circumstances section 137 of the Civil Code in terms authorizes the court at any time during the pendency of an action for divorce, in its discretion, to require the husband to pay as alimony any money necessary to enable the wife to prosecute or defend the action.

(Ex parte Joutsen, 154 Cal. 540, 544 [ 98 Pac. 391 ];

Stewart v. Stewart, 156 Cal. 651, 655 [ 105 Pac. 955 ].)

The order is affirmed.

Kerrigan, J., Seawell, J., Myers, J., Lennon, J., Lawlor, J., and Wilbur, C. J., concurred.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1946: 119462026peak 1946 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Colbert v. Colbert169 P.2d 633 (Cal. 1946)

Most recent

  1. Colbert v. Colbert169 P.2d 633 (Cal. 1946)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Stewart v. Stewart, 105 P. 955 (Cal. 1909) 28
Ex Parte Joutsen, 98 P. 391 (Cal. 1908) 24

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list