Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

34 Cal. App. 658

168 P 588

Dee v. Dee

California Court of Appeal

Decided September 17, 1917

California Court of Appeal · decided 1917-09-17

Relies on Hagle v. Hagle · 16 Cal. App. 353 - Bruce v. Bruce

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1917-09-17

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently October 1959

8 state decisions

3019171920193019401950decided

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 →

*659 THE COURT.

¶1 This is an appeal from a judgment denying plaintiff a divorce, and from the order denying a new trial.

¶2 Plaintiff charged extreme cruelty and defendant by a cross-complaint set up a like charge against the plaintiff. After a trial of the action, findings were waived and judgment was rendered denying both parties a divorce and requiring defendant to pay a certain sum to plaintiff for the support of two minor children.

¶3 Plaintiff seeks a reversal of the judgment and order on two grounds: First, that under the evidence she was entitled to a divorce; second, that although a divorce was denied, she was entitled, pursuant to the provisions of section 136 of the Civil Code, to separate maintenance and permanent support.

¶4 Plaintiff’s complaint alleged ten acts of cruelty, and while it is true that the denial by defendant while on the stand of some of these alleged acts was somewhat evasive in character, nevertheless there is a conflict in the evidence, and inasmuch as the trial court is the judge of the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses, its findings on these questions are conclusive. Since the findings were waived, it must be assumed that the court found against the plaintiff all of the facts necessary to sustain the judgment. (Bruce v. Bruce, 16 Cal. App. 357, [116 Pac. 994].)

¶5 The allowance of separate maintenance and support was a matter for the sound discretion- of the trial court (Hagle v. Hagle, 68 Cal. 588, [9 Pac. 842]), and we are not prepared to say that that discretion was abused in the present case.

¶6 The judgment and the order denying a new trial are affirmed.

/34/calapp/658 · .json · Public domain