In Re Purmel

California Court of Appeal Mar 3, 1931 No. Docket No. 1623.Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court denied a petition for habeas corpus, finding that the record sufficiently established the petitioner's ability to comply with a court-ordered payment in a divorce action.

Issues

Whether the petitioner was improperly adjudged guilty of contempt without testimony regarding his ability to pay.

Disposition. Denied

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It appears from the affidavit upon which the citation was based and also the order adjudging petitioner guilty of contempt, that he had the ability to pay but failed to do so.”

THE COURT.

Application for writ of habeas corpus.

The record shows that petitioner was ordered to pay certain sums of money in a divorce action. Having failed to comply with the order, he was commanded to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt. On the hearing he was adjudged guilty.[1] It is here claimed that no testimony was taken as to the ability of petitioner to comply with the order. There is no merit in the contention. It appears from the affidavit upon which the citation was based and also the order adjudging petitioner guilty of contempt, that he had the ability to pay but failed to do so.

The petition is denied.

In Re Purmel

AI Brief

THE COURT.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief