TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Langan v. Langan

CHRISTINA L. LANGAN v. JOHN A. LANGAN

Langan v. Langan, 23 P. 1084 (Cal. 1890)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
April 30, 1890
Docket
No. 13620
Judges
McFarland
Citations
23 P. 108483 Cal. 6181890 Cal. LEXIS 737
Headnotes
Divorce — Alimony — Allowance of Counsel Fees—Jurisdiction — Dismissal of Appeal. — When, after an order allowing monthly payment of alimony to the plaintiff in an action for a divorce, a separate order is made allowing one hundred and fifty dollars counsel fees, an appeal from such order must be dismissed because the amount in dispute is too small to give the court jurisdiction.
Summary
Motion to dismiss an appeal from an order of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco. 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 — McFarland

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

McFarland, J.

The record in this case shows that an action for divorce between the parties herein is pending and undetermined in the superior court; that the court made an order that defendant pay to plaintiff $25 per month alimony, and that afterward the court made another order that defendant pay to plaintiff $150 counsel fees. Defendant takes a separate appeal from each of said orders, and respondent moves to dismiss the appeal from the order allowing the counsel fees. (As appellant does not move to dismiss the appeal from the order allowing alimony, that question is not before us.)

The appeal from the order allowing $150 counsel fees must be dismissed because the amount in dispute is too small to give the court jurisdiction.

The appeal from the order allowing counsel fees is dismissed.

Fox, J., Sharpstein, J., Paterson, J., Thornton, J., and Beatty, C. J., concurred.

How later courts describe this case

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

1890: 11892: 11893: 11899: 21905: 118902026peak 1899 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Harron v. Harron56 P. 334 (Cal. 1899)
  2. Aronson v. Levison83 P. 154 (Cal. 1905)
  3. Southern California Railway Co. v. Superior Court59 P. 789 (Cal. 1899)
  4. Sellick v. De Carlow30 P. 795 (Cal. 1892)
  5. Fairbanks v. Lampkin34 P. 101 (Cal. 1893)
  6. Langan v. Langan24 P. 852 (Cal. 1890)

Most recent

  1. Aronson v. Levison83 P. 154 (Cal. 1905)
  2. Southern California Railway Co. v. Superior Court59 P. 789 (Cal. 1899)
  3. Harron v. Harron56 P. 334 (Cal. 1899)
  4. Fairbanks v. Lampkin34 P. 101 (Cal. 1893)
  5. Sellick v. De Carlow30 P. 795 (Cal. 1892)
  6. Langan v. Langan24 P. 852 (Cal. 1890)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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