gno.law

Bancroft v. Bancroft

California Supreme Court · L. A. No. 5411. In Bank. · 1918-06-03 · Published · 173 P. 585 · 178 Cal. 366 · 1918 Cal. LEXIS 482

GRIFFING BANCROFT, Respondent, v. ETHEL W. BANCROFT, Appellant

Proceeding
appeal from a judgment
Trial court
Superior Court of San Diego County
Trial judge
C. N. Andrews
Outcome
other — The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Luce & Luce, and Joseph L.
Area
civil
Panel
The Court (author)

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion

THE COURT.

This is an appeal from that portion of a final judgment decreeing a divorce between the parties to this action. The facts of the case are fully set forth in the case of Bancroft v. Bancroft, ante, p. 352, [173 Pac. 582]. The matters upon which the appellant predicates her right to a reversal herein occurred prior to the inception of the action, and were, therefore, the subject of review upon an appeal from the inter *367 locutory decree had such appeal been taken, and hence cannot be made the subject of review upon an appeal from the final decree. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 956;

Claudius v. Melvin, 146 Cal. 257, [79 Pac. 897];

Suttman v. Superior Court, 174 Cal. 243, [162 Pac. 1032];

Newell v. Superior Court, 27 Cal. App. 343, [149 Pac. 998];

Reed v. Reed, 9 Cal. App. 748, [100 Pac. 897].) In addition to this, however, the points discussed upon this appeal have been decided adversely to the appellant’s contention in the case of Bancroft v. Bancroft ante, p. 359, [173 Pac. 579], and upon the conclusions arrived at in that decision the portion of the judgment herein appealed from is affirmed.

Cites, in this corpus

Cited by