Court Opinion

ID: 9857193
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 13:56:20.625702+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:38:07.702720
License: Public Domain

HANSON, J. pro tem., Dissenting.
I dissent:
On rehearing the court recedes from the view it expressed in its former opinion in this case, reported in (Cal. App.) 118 Pac. (2d) 898. The present opinion does not attempt to challenge the view there expressed. Instead, the decision is rested largely on the fact that as the procedural rule announced in the case of Bennett v. Bennett has been on the books for twenty years it should be followed because the profession has accepted it as the correct rule ever since. I do not know upon what data this assertion is made, but assuming its correctness the fact nevertheless is, as I pointed out in our original opinion, that alimony or support money has been awarded since the days of the Ecclesiastical courts not on issue joined but as an incident of divorce. The case turns on that point and that alone, and the majority opinion does not meet it. Accordingly, while I am reluctant to disagree with my associates I have here no other alternative.