Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Ex parte ELLIOTT.
This is an application for a writ of habeas corpus, following an adjudication of contempt for refusal to pay alimony. The main grounds urged for the issuance of the writ are that the affidavit initiating the contempt proceeding contained no averment that petitioner was able to comply with the terms of the decree, and that no evidence was introduced to that effect at the hearing. We are of the opinion that the findings of the trial court as set forth in the provisional order of June 3, 1937, which formed the basis for the adjudication of contempt, wherein the trial court determined that petitioner was regularly employed at a salary of $120 a month and directed that, pending a showing of “greater ability to pay,” he should pay $40 a monty, in and of themselves constituted a finding as to petitioner's ability to pay said monthly sum, and, such being the case, said provisional order and the affidavit of petitioner's divorced wife that petitioner was still in receipt of said monthly earnings and had refused to comply with the terms of said order were evidently legally sufficient to establish a prima facie case of contempt. In re McCarty, 154 Cal. 534, 98 P. 540; In re Rasmussen, 56 Cal.App. 368, 205 P. 72; In re Leet, 99 Cal.App. 788–790, 279 P. 466. In that state of the record the affidavit presented by petitioner at the time of the hearing in support of his claim that he was unable to comply with the terms of said provisional order could do no more than raise a conflict upon which the determination of the trial court is controlling. Bailey v. Superior Court, 215 Cal. 548, 11 P. (2d) 865.
The application is denied.
PER CURIAM.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: Cr. 1996.
Decided: November 05, 1937
Court: District Court of Appeal, First District, Division 1, California.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)