From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dixon v. Dixon

Supreme Court of California
Sep 27, 1932
216 Cal. 443 (Cal. 1932)

Opinion

Docket No. L.A. 13590.

September 27, 1932.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County providing for support and maintenance of minor pending determination of appeal from a judgment directing father to pay for such support. Dudley G. Valentine, Judge. Affirmed.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

West McKinney for Appellant.

Hugh A. McNary for Respondent.


Plaintiff, on January 5, 1932, secured judgment in action L.A. No. 13564 ( ante, p. 440 [ 14 P.2d 497]) ordering defendant to pay the sum of $75 per month for the maintenance and support of the minor adopted daughter of these parties, together with $150 counsel fees and costs, from which defendant appealed. Plaintiff thereupon instituted this proceeding on motion to secure support and maintenance for the minor child pending appeal from said judgment, together with further counsel fees and costs. Defendant resisted the motion; the matter was heard and on January 26, 1932, the court gave its order directing defendant to pay, pending said appeal, the sum of $75 per month for the support of said child and $300 counsel fees, all monthly payments so made to be credited upon said judgment in the event of its affirmance. Defendant thereupon appealed from said order.

[1] The action of the court below in so providing for the support and maintenance of the minor pending determination of the appeal from the judgment in the main case was proper ( Sheppard v. Sheppard, 161 Cal. 348 [ 119 P. 492]). The order is therefore affirmed.

Shenk, J., Tyler, J., pro tem., Langdon, J., Waste, C.J., and Curtis, J., concurred.


Summaries of

Dixon v. Dixon

Supreme Court of California
Sep 27, 1932
216 Cal. 443 (Cal. 1932)
Case details for

Dixon v. Dixon

Case Details

Full title:NELLE C. DIXON, Respondent, v. WINFIELD EUGENE DIXON, etc., Appellant

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Sep 27, 1932

Citations

216 Cal. 443 (Cal. 1932)
14 P.2d 498

Citing Cases

Puckett v. Puckett

At that time, Mrs. Puckett's attorney had rendered the services mentioned in the notice of motion and the…

Lerner v. Superior Court

[9] Clarence invokes decisions to the effect that pending appeal a trial court has jurisdiction to require a…