gno.law

Reilly v. Reilly

California Supreme Court · No. 8,102 · 1882-06-29 · Published · 60 Cal. 624 · 1882 Cal. LEXIS 521

BRIDGET REILLY v. LAWRENCE REILLY

Area
civil
Panel
James D. Thornton (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 — Thornton

Thornton, J.:

This is a motion made in this Court for'alimony pending an appeal. We do not think any such jurisdiction is vested in this Court. Only appellate jurisdiction is conferred on this tribunal by the organic law defining its jurisdiction, and the jurisdiction invoked here is, in our view, original. It is true that power is also vested in this Court to issue all writs necessary or proper to the complete exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. But no writ is necessary or proper here. The appellate jurisdiction can be exercised without it. The power over this matter is vested in the Superior Court, even pending an appeal. The appeal does not take away its jurisdiction, as the matter is not affected by the judgment appealed from. (C. C. P., 946.) The cause is still pending in the Superior Court for the purpose sought to be attained by this motion.

The motion is denied.

Myrick and Sharpstein, JJ., concurred.

Cited by