Legal Opinion
In Re Brune
California Court of Appeal
Decided April 8, 1931No. Docket No. 1629PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
THE COURT.
Habeas corpus. [1] Petitioner claims he is unlawfully imprisoned for failure to comply with an order requiring him to pay certain sums for the support and maintenance of his wife. He alleges that since the making of the order a disability to comply therewith has arisen. The petition is denied on the ground that no application for discharge has been first made in the court below. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1143; In re Wilson, 75 Cal. 580 [17 P. 698].)
2Cases cited1 opinion
- WilsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
3Cited by3 opinions
- In Re EliasCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
- Harris v. Superior Court of State of California for the County of Los AngelesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1974
- Paul Harris v. Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, Andpeter Petchess, Sheriff of Los Angeles County, Co-Respondents, the State Ofcalifornia, Real Party in Interest, Fawn Harris v. Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, Andpeter Pitchess, Sheriff of Los Angeles, County, Co-Respondents, the People Ofthe State of California, Real Party in InterestCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1974