Tripp v. Tripp, 211 P. 225 (Cal. 1922). · Go Syfert
Search
Tripp v. Tripp, 211 P. 225 (Cal. 1922). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
39 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 8 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 1923 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1923 1974 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Heller v. Heller
Cal. Ct. App. · 1964 · confidence medium
Proc., *682 § 1222; Travis v. Travis, 89 Cal.App.2d 291 [ 200 P.2d 843 ] ; Tripp v. Tripp, 190 Cal. 201, 202 [ 211 P. 225 ]), but can be reviewed only by writs of certiorari (Grant v. Superior Court, 214 Cal.App.2d 15, 19 [ 29 Cal.Rptr. 125 ]), habeas corpus or prohibition (Smith v. Habegger, 213 Cal.App.2d 183 [ 28 Cal.Rptr. 646 ]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Tucker v. Tucker
Cal. Ct. App. · 1963 · confidence medium
Proc., § 1222; Tripp v. Tripp, 190 Cal. 201, 202 [ 211 P. 225 ].) The motion to dismiss was denied as to the award of attorney fee.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Grant v. Superior Court
Cal. Ct. App. · 1963 · confidence medium
Proc., § 1222; Tripp v. Tripp (1922) 190 Cal. 201, 202 [ 211 P. 225 ]; Phillips v. Siiperior Court (1943) 22 Cal.2d 256, 257 [ 137 P.2d 838 ]; Nutter v. Superior Court (1960) 183 Cal.App.2d 72, 73 [ 6 Cal.Rptr. 404 ]; Brady v. Superior Court (1962) 200 Cal.App.2d 69, 72 [ 19 Cal.Rptr. 242 ].) Nor can there be any question about the legal principles which guide and govern us in our examination of the final judgment of divorce underlying the contempt.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Brady v. Superior Court
Cal. Ct. App. · 1962 · confidence medium
Proc., § 1222; Tripp v. Tripp (1922) 190 Cal. 201, 202 [ 211 P. 225 ]; Nutter v. Superior Court (1960) 183 Cal.App. *73 2d 72, 73 [ 6 Cal.Rptr. 404 ]; Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court * (Cal.) [ 18 Cal.Rptr. 479 , 368 P.2d 97 ], ) 1 A series of California eases hold that the violation of an order which exceeds the court’s jurisdiction cannot produce a judgment of contempt.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mackie v. Mackie
Cal. Ct. App. · 1960 · confidence medium
(Tripp v. Tripp, 190 Cal. 201, 202 [ 211 P. 225 ] ; Travis v. Travis, 89 Cal.App.2d 291 [ 200 P.2d 843 ].) As to the remaining portion of the second notice of appeal, the matters mentioned in addition to the judgment are not separately appealable but are reviewable on the appeal from the judgment (see 3 Witkin, California Procedure, 2162-2164); consequently, the appeal is in essence from the judgment.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) John Breuner Co. v. Bryant
Cal. · 1951 · confidence medium
Proc., § 1222; Tripp v. Tripp, 190 Cal. 201, 202 [ 211 P. 225 ]; Gale v. Tuolumne County Water Co., 169 Cal. 46, 50-53 [ 145 P. 532 ] ; Moon v. Moon, 62 Cal.App. 2d 189, 191 [ 144 P.2d 599 ]; Thomas v. Thomas, 4 Cal.App. 2d 317, 318 [ 40 P.2d 581 ] ; Abbott v. Abbott, 24 Cal.App. 475, 477 [ 141 P. 939 ].) An order or judgment in a contempt matter may, however, be reviewed by certiorari (Wilson v. Superior Court, 31 Cal.2d 458, 459 [ 189 P.2d 266 ]; Gue v. Dennis, 28 Cal.2d 616 [ 170 P.2d 887 ]; Weber v. Superior Court, 26 Cal.2d 144, 148 [ 156 P.2d 923 ]; Phillips v. Superior Court, 22 Cal.2d…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wilson v. Superior Court
Cal. · 1948 · confidence medium
It is conceded that a final judgment of contempt is properly reviewable on certiorari (5 Cal.Jur. § 50, p. 955; Tripp v. Tripp, 190 Cal. 201, 202 [ 211 P. 225 ]; Brunton v. Superior Court, 20 Cal.2d 202, 204 [ 124 P.2d 831 ]; Taylor v. Superior Court, 20 Cal.2d 244, 246 [ 125 P.2d 1 ]; Rose v. Superior Court, 44 Cal.App.2d 599, 600 [ 112 P.2d 713 ]), but it is argued that “the point . . . has become moot inasmuch as” petitioner, “when ordered into . .. . custody . . ., paid the alimony judgment now under contest.” However, the law is otherwise and such payment, under legal compulsion,…
cited Cited "see" Easton v. Koch
Pa. Super. Ct. · 1943 · signal: see · confidence high
See Phillips et al. v. Laguna Beach Co. et al., 190 Cal. 180 , 211 P. 225, 226 ; Reinhart v. Chalfant, 12 Del.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
AMELIA P. TRIPP, Respondent,
v.
E. E. TRIPP, Appellant
L. A. No. 7308..
California Supreme Court.
Dec 15, 1922.
211 P. 225
D. Joseph Coyne and Joseph M. Suttner for Appellant. Griffith Jones and John J. Craig for Respondent.
Waste.
Cited by 13 opinions  |  Published
WASTE, J.

The defendant has attempted to appeal from an order adjudging him guilty of contempt of court in refusing to make certain payments alleged to be due under the terms of a final decree of divorce.

The law does not authorize an appeal in such matters. It is expressly provided in section 1222 of the Code of Civil Procedure that “the judgment and orders of the court or judge, made in cases of contempt, are final and conclusive.” It is only when an order so made is in excess of the jurisdiction of the court making it that it may be annulled on certiorari. (People v. Latimer, 160 Cal. 716, 720 [117 Pac. 1051].)

If it be contended that the order adjudging defendant guilty of contempt was one made after final judgment, from which an appeal may ordinarily be taken under section 963 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is now settled that this provision is general in character, and is controlled by the special law contained in section 1222 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which makes a judgment of contempt final and conclusive, and, therefore, nonappealable. (Gale v. Tuolumne Water Co., 169 Cal. 46, 51 [145 Pac. 532].)

The appeal is dismissed.

Sloane, J., Shurtleff, J., Lennon, J., Wilbur, J., Shaw, C. J., and Lawlor, J., concurred.