Case Name: HARDENBERG v. HARDENBERG
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1880
Citations: 54 Cal. 591
Docket Number: No. 6,220
Parties: HARDENBERG v. HARDENBERG.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 54
Pages: 591–592

Head Matter:
[No. 6,220.]
HARDENBERG v. HARDENBERG.
Edsdings.
Appeal from a judgment for the plaintiff, in the Third District Court, City and County of San Francisco. McKee, J.
The action is for a divorce, and all the allegations of the complaint are denied in the answer. The appeal is on the judgment roll, and the transcript contains no bill of exceptions.
The following document appears in the transcript:
“Findihgs ahd Decisioh oe the Court.—On the 13th day of December, 1877, the Court duly made and rendered the following findings, judgment, and decree: ' [Title of Court and Cause.] This cause having been brought on to be heard, * * and upon the proofs taken in said action, and upon the report of R. A. Redman, Court Commissioner of this Court and Referee in this cause, * * * and the Court Commissioner and Referee having taken the testimony by written questions and answers, and reported the same to the Court, * * * from which it appears that all the material allegations of the complaint herein are sustained by testimony free from all legal exceptions aá to its competency, admissibility, and sufficiency ; that said plaintiff and defendant were residents of this Alameda County, State of California, at the time of commencing the suit, and was an actual resident of this State for a period of six months immediately prior thereto: on motion of W. Van Voorhies, of counsel for the plaintiff, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed * * * that the marriage between the said plaintiff and the defendant be dissolved, and the same is herely dissolved accordingly, etc. * -* » Judged signature.’ ”
No other findings appear in the transcript.
Montgomery & Martin, for Appellant.
The findings in this case are insufficient to support the judgment. (Ladd's Exr. v. Tully et al. 51 Cal. 277; Spiegle v. Leese, Id. 415.)

Opinion:
Department No. 2, by the Court (from the Bench):
The judgment is reversed on the authority of Ladd v. Tully, 51 Cal. 277, and People v. Forbes, Id. 628.