TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Moffatt v. Moffatt

SUSAN MOFFATT v. S. C. MOFFATT

Moffatt v. Moffatt, 5 Cal. 280 (1855)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 1, 1855
Judges
Bryan
Citations
5 Cal. 2801855 Cal. LEXIS 109
Syllabus
The desertion of the husband entitles the wife to her own domicil.
Summary
Appeal from the-District Court of the Twelfth Judicial District, San Francisco County.

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

Opinion of the Court — Bryan

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Bryan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

Murray, C. J., and Heydenfeldt, J., concurred.

This is an action brought by the appellant for the purpose of obtaining a divorce. The complaint alleged an abandonment and desertion *281 by the husband from his wife for over three years. The report of the referees, to whom the cause was referred establishes that fact.

There is no analogy between this cause and the case of Kashaw v. Kashaw, 3 Cal., 312 , as the record seems to indicate.

In the case of Kashaw v. Kashaw, the wife followed the husband to this State, and having resided in the State less than six months, sued for a divorce. A question arose in that case as to domicil, it being held that the wife’s domicil should be considered in the case referred to, as that of her husband.

. In the cause before us there is evidence of a palpable desertion upon the part of the husband, and for a time defined by law as sufficient to afford to the wife a proper reason for an application for a divorce. The desertion of the husband entitles the wife to her own domicil.

We deem that the Court below erred in its ruling, and the judgment must be reversed, with costs.

How later courts describe this case

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

1873–1874: 11879–1880: 11881–1882: 11893–1894: 11911–1912: 11917–1918: 118732026peak 1873 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Mellen v. Mellen10 Abb. N. Cas. 329 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1882)
  2. Skyrme v. Occidental Mill & Mining Co.8 Nev. 219 (1873)
  3. Duncan v. Hawn37 P. 626 (Cal. 1894)
  4. Wyrick v. Wyrick145 S.W. 144 (Mo. Ct. App. 1912)
  5. Blumenthal v. Tannenholz31 N.J. Eq. 194 (1879)
  6. Merritt v. Merritt160 P. 22 (Nev. 1917)

Most recent

  1. Merritt v. Merritt160 P. 22 (Nev. 1917)
  2. Wyrick v. Wyrick145 S.W. 144 (Mo. Ct. App. 1912)
  3. Duncan v. Hawn37 P. 626 (Cal. 1894)
  4. Mellen v. Mellen10 Abb. N. Cas. 329 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1882)
  5. Blumenthal v. Tannenholz31 N.J. Eq. 194 (1879)
  6. Skyrme v. Occidental Mill & Mining Co.8 Nev. 219 (1873)

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

DepthCaseCited by
Kashaw v. Kashaw, 3 Cal. 312 (1853) 18

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