Case ID: cal-app_113/html/0728-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "THE COURT.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[Civ. No. 7948.
    First Appellate District, Division One.
    May 1, 1931.]
    ROY E. TREECE, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ALAMEDA COUNTY et al., Respondents.
    George Ingraham for Petitioner.
    
      No appearance for Respondent.
   THE COURT.

This is an application for a writ of certiorari to have reviewed and annulled two orders made by the Superior Court in a divorce action after the entry of the interlocutory decree. The first order was made for the purpose of correcting nunc pro tunc the form of the decree. Such order is admittedly appealable, and according to the affirmative allegations of the petition for the writ petitioner is now exercising such remedy. The second order directed petitioner to pay his wife $150 as counsel fees and costs in order that she might defend said appeal. It was clearly within the trial court’s discretion to make such an order. (1 Cal. Jur. 1002, and cases cited; Smith v. Smith, 94 Cal. App. 172 [270 Pac. 995]; Jacobs v. Jacobs, 68 Cal. App. 725 [230 Pac. 209]; Lamborn v. Lamborn, 190 Cal. 794 [214 Pac. 862]; Bancroft v. Bancroft, 178 Cal. 352 [173 Pac. 582]; Bohnert v. Bohnert, 91 Cal. 428 [27 Pac. 732]; Stewart v. Stewart, 156 Cal. 651 [105 Pac. 955].) As stated in California Jurisprudence, supra, the power of the trial court to compel the husband to defray the wife’s legal expenses in the matrimonial cause, where she is without means to pay them, is not exhausted by the rendition of judgment in the case.

The application for the writ is denied.