Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)

DORIS CARMICHAEL, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. FRANK CARMICHAEL, Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT.

[1] It is the conclusion of the court that the clear implication of the decree is that plaintiff should have immediate occupancy of the property in question. While her title to the property would not be complete until the decree became final and would be defeated by death or reconciliation during the interlocutory period, we hold that reason, common sense and authority entitle her in the meantime to the right to possession of the property awarded to her. ( Wilson v. Wilson, 76 Cal.App.2d 119, 132 [ 172 P.2d 568]; Code Civ. Proc., § 945) The order heretofore made staying any further proceedings is hereby discharged and the petition for supersedeas is denied.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

CARMICHAEL v. CARMICHAEL
(Dec 20, 1961)