Summary
In Langan v. Langan, 83 Cal. 618, the court dismissed an appeal from an order allowing one hundred and fifty dollars as counsel fees, assigning as the reason therefor that the amount in dispute was too small to give the court jurisdiction; but it does not appear that this provision of the constitution was presented to the court or considered by it.
Summary of this case from Harron v. HarronOpinion
Motion to dismiss an appeal from an order of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco.
COUNSEL:
Wickliffe Matthews, for Appellant.
John E. Sundstrom, and Manuel Eyre, for Respondent.
JUDGES: In Bank. McFarland, J. Fox, J., Sharpstein, J., Paterson, J., Thornton, J., and Beatty, C. J., concurred.
OPINION
McFARLAND, Judge
The record in this case shows that an action for divorce between the parties herein is pending and undetermined in the superior court; that the court made an order that defendant pay to plaintiff $ 25 per month alimony, and that afterward the court made another order that defendant pay to plaintiff $ 150 counsel fees. Defendant takes a separate appeal from each of said orders, and respondent moves to dismiss the appeal from the order allowing the counsel fees. (As appellant does not move to dismiss the appeal from the order allowing alimony, that question is not before us.)
The appeal from the order allowing $ 150 counsel fees must be dismissed because the amount in dispute is too small to give the court jurisdiction.
The appeal from the order allowing counsel fees is dismissed.