Rycraft v. Rycraft

Decided October 15, 1871

California Supreme Court · decided 1871-10-15

The plaintiff and defendant were married, and lived together fifteen months. The defendant worked at his trade as carpenter, earning from four to five dollars per day, but furnished nothing for the support of the family. The plaintiff owned a house and' three acres óf land, upon which the family lived, and by keeping hoarders and selling milk and eggs she supported the family.

Relies on Judson v. Atwill

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1871-10-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently June 1945

5 state decisions

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 →

By the Court, Temple, J.:

¶1Action for divorce by the wife, on the ground of willful neglect on the part of the husband to provide the common necessaries of life.

¶2The evidence shows that the wife owned some property and carried on business by which she earned sufficient for her support. The only evidence of ability to provide the common necessaries of life on the part of the husband is that he is a good workman and might earn enough for that *446purpose. The defendant has never interfered with the plaintiff in the disposition of the moneys earned by her, and, as these were sufficient for her support, the action must fail. (Washburn v. Washburn, 9 Cal. 477.) If this were otherwise, we could not consider the sufficiency of the evidence on the appeal from the judgment.

¶3Judgment affirmed.