Legal Opinion

Ex parte Winter

California Supreme Court

Decided July 30, 1886No. 20202PublishedCited by 14 opinions

Application for a writ of habeas corpus. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

Foote, C.

A wife brought an action against her husband for permanent support and maintenance. The court pendente lite, upon application by the plaintiff, made an order for the defendant to pay counsel for her use $250 as counsel fees,—it appearing that he was amply able to do so, and she having no means otherwise to prosecute her action.

From that order the defendant appealed, and that appeal is still pending in this court.

Afterwards, the court below, on motion duly made, ordered the defendant to pay the further sum of $250 counsel fees to the plaintiff’s counsel for her use, in order that she…

2Cited by14 opinions

  1. Bohnert v. BohnertCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  2. Roby v. RobyIdaho Supreme Court · 1903
  3. Bordeaux v. BordeauxMontana Supreme Court · 1904
  4. Grannis v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
  5. Painter v. Estate of PainterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API