Gray v. Gray
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Earl Rogers, Harrison Cassell and G. Stuart Silliman for Appellant.
1Opinion of the CourtLennon, J.
Plaintiff and defendant are husband and wife, and in this action for separate maintenance, instituted under the provisions of section 137 of the Civil Code, the plaintiff sought and secured a decree directing the defendant to pay her the sum of fifty dollars per month for the permanent maintenance and support of herself and minor child. One of the three causes of action pleaded in the plaintiff’s complaint was abandoned and the cause proceeded to trial upon the remaining two causes of action, namely, willful desertion and extreme cruelty. The deser tion complained of consisted of the alleged…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Antonelle v. Board of New City Hall CommissionersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Bruce v. BruceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1911
3Cited by32 opinions
- Mears v. MearsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
- Bekins Van Lines, Inc. v. JohnsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- Border Business Park, Inc. v. City of San DiegoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
- Homestead Supplies, Inc. v. Executive Life InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1978
- Childers v. ChildersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.