Ex parte Hart
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtBeatty, C. J.
The petitioner is imprisoned upon a charge of contempt of court, consisting in his refusal to pay alimony awarded to his divorced wife by the decree of divorce. He contends that the imprisonment is unlawful, because, as he claims, the decree as to the order for alimony is void by reason of the fact that it does not *255specify the period during which the alimony is to he paid.
As I construe the decree, it intends the payment of alimony to continue during the life of the plaintiff in the divorce suit, or until modified by the court. Such a decree the court had power to make in granting a divorce…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Epps v. EppsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1929
- Soule v. SouleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1906
- Smith v. RogersSupreme Court of Alabama · 1927
- Fischer v. FischerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1927
- Borton v. BortonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1935
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.