gno.law

Kirkpatrick v. Kirkpatrick

California Supreme Court · S.F. No. 4807. · 1907-11-23 · Published · 92 P. 853 · 152 Cal. 316 · 1907 Cal. LEXIS 347

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

Proceeding
appeal from a judgment
Trial court
Superior Court of Sonoma County
Trial judge
Emmet Seawell
Outcome
other — The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. T. J.
Area
civil
Panel
Frederick W. Henshaw (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 — 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.

Cites, in this corpus

Cited by