Majority
p. 366[L. A. No. 5411. In Bank. June 3, 1918.] GRIFFING BANCROFT, Respondent, v. ETHEL W. BANCROFT, Appellant.
Headnote
Divorce—Appeal from Final Decree—Matters Occurring Prior to Inception of Action not Reviewable.—On appeal from a final decree of divorce, matters occurring prior to the inception of the action, and therefore reviewable on appeal from the interlocutory decree, if such an appeal had been taken, are not subject to review.APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County. C. N. Andrews, Judge.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Luce & Luce, and Joseph L. Lewinsohn, for Appellant.
Ward, Ward & Ward, and Sweet, Stearns & Forward, for Respondent.
This is an appeal from that portion of a final judgment decreeing a divorce between the parties to this action. The facts of the case are fully set forth in the case of Bancroft v. Bancroft, ante, p. 352, [ 173 Pac. 582 ]. The matters upon which the appellant predicates her right to a reversal herein occurred prior to the inception of the action, and were, therefore, the subject of review upon an appeal from the inter
p. 367
locutory decree had such appeal been taken, and hence cannot be made the subject of review upon an appeal from the final decree. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 956; Claudius v. Melvin, 146 Cal. 257 , [ 79 Pac. 897 ]; Suttman v. Superior Court, 174 Cal. 243 , [ 162 Pac. 1032 ]; Newell v. Superior Court, 27 Cal. App. 343 , [ 149 Pac. 998 ]; Reed v. Reed, 9 Cal. App. 748 , [ 100 Pac. 897 ].) In addition to this, however, the points discussed upon this appeal have been decided adversely to the appellant’s contention in the case of Bancroft v. Bancroft ante, p. 359, [ 173 Pac. 579 ], and upon the conclusions arrived at in that decision the portion of the judgment herein appealed from is affirmed.
Cases cited
- Claudius v. Melvin 146 Cal. 257 p. 367
- Suttman v. Superior Court 174 Cal. 243 p. 367
- Newell v. Superior Court 27 Cal. App. 343 p. 367
- Reed v. Reed 9 Cal. App. 748 p. 367