Kowalsky v. Kowalsky
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from an order of tlie Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco allowing alimony and counsel fees pending an action for divorce. J. M. Seawell, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.
In this action for divorce the defendant appeals from an order requiring him to pay to the plaintiff the sum of one hundred dollars a month for her support during the pendency of the action and the further sum of two hundred and fifty dollars for counsel fees.
If we were hearing an appeal on the merits we might be disposed to scan carefully the allegations of cruelty to determine whether a cause of action is well stated. But the marriage is admitted in the answer, and a cause of action for extreme cruelty is sufficiently stated to make out a prima facie case. The purpose of allowing alimony to…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Hite v. HiteCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- Storke v. StorkeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Langan v. LanganCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Poole v. WilberCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
3Cited by14 opinions
- Locke Paddon v. Locke PaddonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
- Loeb v. LoebCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
- Hodous v. HodousNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1949
- Westphal v. WestphalCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
- Whiting v. WhitingCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1923
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.