From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Clay v. Clay

Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division Two
Mar 17, 1937
19 Cal.App.2d 589 (Cal. Ct. App. 1937)

Opinion

Docket No. 11341.

March 17, 1937.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Emmet H. Wilson, Judge. Reversed.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Oscar L. Horn and W.B. Etheridge for Appellant.

James E. Neville for Respondent.


This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

[1] It is a sufficient compliance with the constitutional provision, which requires us to state the reasons for our decisions in writing, to say in this case that the appellant and respondent have stipulated that the decision herein be rendered.

[2] The stipulation also provides that this court direct the trial court to enter judgment for the defendant. But this we refuse to do. This is a divorce case and the trial court may well exercise its authority in the premises after trial or after hearing on a motion.

The judgment is reversed. Each party is to pay his or her own costs on appeal. Let remittitur issue forthwith.

Wood, J., and McComb, J., pro tem., concurred.


Summaries of

Clay v. Clay

Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division Two
Mar 17, 1937
19 Cal.App.2d 589 (Cal. Ct. App. 1937)
Case details for

Clay v. Clay

Case Details

Full title:VELMA L. CLAY, Respondent, v. JAMES A. CLAY, Appellant

Court:Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division Two

Date published: Mar 17, 1937

Citations

19 Cal.App.2d 589 (Cal. Ct. App. 1937)
65 P.2d 1363

Citing Cases

In re Marriage of Shapiro

(2) An appellate court may properly reverse on stipulation after the court has decided, or had the…