Opinion

Hagle v. Hagle

  • 74 Cal. 608
  • 16 P. 518
  • 1888 Cal. LEXIS 806
Court
California Supreme Court
Filed
Jan 28, 1888
Status
Published
Author
McFarland
On the bench
McFarland, Paterson
Cited by
14 cases

The opinion

McFarland, J., concurring.

I concur in the judgment; but I dissent from the view that a decree in a divorce case directing the husband to furnish certain support to the wife can be valid only when the parties lived together. I do not think that such is the law, because section 136 of the Civil Code makes no such distinction. Moreover, that section provides that the allowance for maintenance may be made “in an action for divorce” when “judgment for divorce is denied”; and how could there be a bona fide action for divorce while the parties were living together? It is true that in this state there can be no divorce a mensa et thoro; but a decree a mensa et thoro is a very different thing from the mere fact of married people living apart. (Burrill's Law Dictionary, 504.)

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.