Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

73 Cal. 105

White v. White

California Supreme Court

Decided July 7, 1887

California Supreme Court · decided 1887-07-07

<p>Divorce—Alimony and Counsel Fees—Appeal from Order Allowing —Discretion. —In an action for divorce, an order directing the husband to pay to the wife a specified sum of money for costs, alimony, and counsel fees will not he interfered with on appeal, unless it affirmatively appears that the court grossly abused its discretion in making the order.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1887-07-07

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently December 1926

4 state decisions

1018871890190019101920decided

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 →

McFarland, J.

¶1— This is an action of divorce, brought by the husband against the wife. By her answer the wife denies the averments of the complaint, which state facts constituting a cause for divorce; and by a cross-complaint she avers causes of divorce against the husband. The action is still pending in the court below; but during its progress the court made an order directing the payment by said plaintiff to said defendant of certain sums aggregating $3,850, as and for costs and expenses, alimony, and counsel fees, and from this order the plaintiff appeals. The only point made by appellant is, that the allowance was excessive, and an abuse of discretion.

¶2The evidence upon which the order was made was conflicting as to appellant’s financial ability, and as to other matters which it was the duty of the court below to consider. Of course we could not be expected, under any circumstances, to interfere with the judgment of a nisi prius judge in such a matter, unless it appeared *106affirmatively and clearly that there had been a gross abuse of discretion. No such abuse appears here, and therefore we will not stop to determine whether or not our estimates of counsel fees, costs, expenses, etc., would correspond with those of the learned judge of the court below.

¶3This view disposes of the appeal, and therefore it is not necessary to consider the other point made by counsel for respondent, viz., that an appeal does not lie from an order of -this kind in a divorce case where the marriage and the relation of husband and wife are not denied.

¶4Order affirmed.

McKinstby, J., Seabls, 0. Paterson, J., and Temple, J.. concurred.
/73/cal/105 · .json · Public domain