Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

152 Cal. 316

92 P 853

Kirkpatrick v. Kirkpatrick

California Supreme Court

Decided November 23, 1907

California Supreme Court · decided 1907-11-23

<p>The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

Relies on Benkert v. Benkert

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1907-11-23

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently March 1976 · most notably 62 Cal. 2d 368 - In Re Lopez (1965), 48 Cal. 2d 672 - County of Los Angeles v. Faus (1957)

3 federal appellate · 24 state decisions

12019071910192019301940195019601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

HENSHAW, J.

¶1 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.”

¶2 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.

¶3 Lorigan, J., Angellotti, J., Shaw, J., and McFarland, J.,. concurred.

/152/cal/316 · .json · Public domain