Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

20 Cal. 431

Morrison v. Morrison

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1862

California Supreme Court · decided 1862-07-01

<p>Appeal from the Sixth Judicial District.</p> <p>The facts are stated in the opinion. The defendant made default. Upon the proof, the Court below found the fact of abandonment by the husband for the period of nine years, but held that this did not establish a willful desertion on his part without some proof of the circumstances and causes of the separation, and accordingly rendered judgment for defendant, from which plaintiff appeals.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1862-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently July 1964

8 state decisions

4018621870188018901900191019201930194019501960decided

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 →

Cope, J. delivered the opinion of the Court—Field, C. J. concurring.

¶1We think the proofs in this case entitle the plaintiff to a divorce. The evidence shows that the parties were married in 1853, and separated soon after the marriage. The circumstances of the separation are not shown, but sufficient appears to make out a case of desertion. The parties lived together about three weeks, when the defendant left the country, abandoning the plaintiff, and failing to make provision for her support. He is still absent, and has never in any manner contributed to her maintenance, to obtain which she *432has been compelled to rely upon her own exertions. Desertion consists in the cessation of matrimonial cohabitation, and the intent to desert; and we think both ingredients are to be found in this case. The former is proved by positive testimony, and the latter appears inferentially from the fact of the abandonment without apparent cause. The plaintiff is not required to show negatively that no cause existed, for none appearing, the law will not presume one. The presumption is that there was none, and that the defendant intended the consequences resulting from his acts.

¶2The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for a judgment as prayed for in the complaint.

/20/cal/431 · .json · Public domain