TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

In re White

In the Matter of GEORGE E. WHITE, on Habeas Corpus

In re White, 45 P. 323 (Cal. 1896)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 16, 1896
Docket
No. Crim. No. 183
Citations
45 P. 323113 Cal. 2821896 Cal. LEXIS 776
Syllabus
Divorce—Separate Property of Husband—Injunction to Restrain Alienation—Jcrisdiction.—The superior court has jurisdiction, upon a proper showing, to issue an injunction in a proceeding for divorce, to restrain the husband from alienating his separate property. Id.—Review upon Habeas Corpus—Contempt—Support of Injunction —Discretion. —Upon writ of habeas corpus, sued out by the husband, who has been adjudged guilty of contempt in violating the injunction, the question whether the injunction was warranted by the circumstances, or was an abuse of discretion, cannot be considered.
Summary
Hearing in the Supreme Court upon writ of habeas corpus to the sheriff of the City and County - of San Francisco to review a commitment for contempt by the Superior Court of said city and county. J. B. C. Heb-bard, Judge. 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

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

The Court.

Petitioner was adjudged guilty of contempt in disobeying and violating the injunction of the court made pendente lite in the action of divorce, entitled George E. White v. Frankie White.

The injunction restrained petitioner from alienating his separate property. The only jurisdictional question involved turns upon the power of the court to issue such *283 an injunction in a divorce proceeding pending the litigation. We entertain no doubt that in a proper case, and upon a proper showing, this may be done. (High on Injunctions, secs. 1393-95; Bishop on Marriage and Divorce, secs. 1106,1107, and notes where cases are collated.) Whether or not the injunction in this case was warranted by the circumstances, or was an abuse of the discretion of the trial judge, is a question which cannot be considered in this proceeding. The restraining order being within the jurisdiction of the court to make, it follows that the prisoner must be remanded.

Writ discharged and prisoner remanded.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites 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