Kirkpatrick v. Kirkpatrick

HARPOLICY C. KIRKPATRICK, Appellant, v. J. M. KIRKPATRICK, Respondent

Kirkpatrick v. Kirkpatrick, 92 P. 853 (Cal. 1907)

Court: California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided: November 23, 1907
Docket: No. S.F. No. 4807.
Judges: Henshaw
Citations: 92 P. 853152 Cal. 3161907 Cal. LEXIS 347

Cited by 8

Headnotes

Divorce—Bight to Interlocutory Degree.—In an action for a divorce on the ground of desertion, in which the complaint was sufficient, due service was had on the defendant, his default was duly entered, and the facts showing the desertion were established by the evidence of the plaintiff and corroborated by other testimony, it is incumbent upon the court to render an interlocutory decree for a divorce in favor of the plaintiff.

Summary

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Henshaw

HENSHAW, J.

Plaintiff sued defendant for divorce upon the ground of his desertion and abandonment of her. Defendant was personally served with summons and made default. The testimony was taken before the court commissioner, and upon consideration of the testimony the court caused the following decree and judgment to be entered: “Plaintiff’s petition for an interlocutory decree of divorce is hereby denied. Let the order be entered.”

From this interlocutory decree plaintiff appeals. She presents her brief upon appeal and there is no answering brief by respondent and no explanation of the grounds upon which the judgment of the court is based. The complaint is sufficient, the service upon the defendant is regular, his default was duly entered, and the evidence of the wife, corroborated by the testimony of her granddaughter, fully establishes the desertion.

(Benkert v. Benkert, 32 Cal. 467 .) Under this condition of the record it was error to have refused plaintiff her interlocutory decree, and the judgment is, therefore, reversed.

Lorigan, J., Angellotti, J., Shaw, J., and McFarland, J.,. concurred.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 8 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Vileta v. Vileta128 P.2d 376 (Cal. Ct. App. 1942)
Fallon v. Fallon189 P.2d 766 (Cal. Ct. App. 1948)
Polk v. Polk123 P.2d 550 (Cal. Ct. App. 1942)
Lewis v. Lewis141 P. 367 (Cal. 1914)
Lucich v. Lucich172 P.2d 73 (Cal. Ct. App. 1946)
Dee v. Dee261 P. 501 (Cal. Ct. App. 1927)

Most recent

Woodworth v. Woodworth242 Cal. App. 2d 301 (1966)
Fallon v. Fallon189 P.2d 766 (Cal. Ct. App. 1948)
Lucich v. Lucich172 P.2d 73 (Cal. Ct. App. 1946)
Vileta v. Vileta128 P.2d 376 (Cal. Ct. App. 1942)
Polk v. Polk123 P.2d 550 (Cal. Ct. App. 1942)
Dee v. Dee261 P. 501 (Cal. Ct. App. 1927)

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 1

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Benkert v. Benkert, 32 Cal. 467 (1867)	31

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list