CLAY v. CLAY

Reset A A Font size: Print

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California.

CLAY v. CLAY.

Civ. 11341.

Decided: March 17, 1937

Oscar L. Horn and W. B. Etheridge, both of Pasadena, for appellant. James E. Neville, of Los Angeles, for respondent.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

It is a sufficient compliance with the constitutional provision, which requires us to state the reasons for our decisions in writing (Const. art. 6, § 2), to say in this case that the appellant and respondent have stipulated that the decision herein be rendered.

The stipulation also provides that this court direct the trial court to enter judgment for the defendant. But this we refuse to do. This is a divorce case and the trial court may well exercise its authority in the premises after trial or after hearing on a motion.

The judgment is reversed. Each party is to pay his or her own costs on appeal. Let remittitur issue forthwith.

CRAIL, Presiding Justice.

We concur: WOOD, J.; McCOMB, Justice pro tem.

Copied to clipboard