From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Larkin v. Larkin

Supreme Court of California
Nov 29, 1886
71 Cal. 330 (Cal. 1886)

Opinion

         Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Alameda County awarding costs and counsel fees in an action of divorce.

         COUNSEL:

         Thomas H. Smith, and Mastick, Belcher & Mastick, for Appellant.

          Charles H. Smith, for Respondent.


         JUDGES: In Bank. Sharpstein, J. Thornton, J., McKinstry, J., and Morrison, C. J., concurred.

         OPINION

          SHARPSTEIN, Judge

         This is an appeal from an order made after final judgment in an action of divorce. The judgment was in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed from it and the order denying her motion for a new trial to this court. After taking such appeal she applied to the court below for an order that the plaintiff pay to her, defendant, a reasonable sum [12 P. 228] for costs and counsel fees with which to prosecute her said appeal. The motion was heard on the affidavits of the respective parties, and an order made that the plaintiff pay the attorney of the defendant $ 175 as costs of her said appeal. From that order this appeal is taken.

         In Ex parte Winters , 70 Cal. 291, it was held that the Superior Court had the power to make such an order, and to enforce compliance with it.

         Appellant on this appeal insists that the facts before the court were insufficient to justify the order. As we view it, there is sufficient in the record to sustain the action of the court.

         Order affirmed.


Summaries of

Larkin v. Larkin

Supreme Court of California
Nov 29, 1886
71 Cal. 330 (Cal. 1886)
Case details for

Larkin v. Larkin

Case Details

Full title:STEPHEN LARKIN, Appellant, v. JENNIE LARKIN, Respondent

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Nov 29, 1886

Citations

71 Cal. 330 (Cal. 1886)
12 P. 227

Citing Cases

Kyne v. Kyne

There are many cases in this and other states holding that a wife is entitled to an allowance of counsel fees…

Bruce v. Bruce

Following these provisions, this court has repeatedly held that the power to make an allowance to the wife…