Reilly v. Reilly
Cases that cite this one
18 later published cases cite this decision.
- Holcomb v. Holcomb (Wash. 1908)
- Prine v. Prine (Fla. 1895)
- Lerner v. Superior Court (Cal. 1952)
- State Ex Rel. Kranke v. Calhoun (Mo. Ct. App. 1921)
- Lewis v. Lewis (Wash. 1915)
- Kjellander v. Kjellander (Kan. 1913)
- Ex parte Axtmayer v. Pueblo (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1913)
- Kostachek v. Kostachek (Okla. 1912)
- Bruce v. Bruce (Cal. 1911)
- Ex Parte Lohmuller (Tex. 1910)
- Duxstad v. Duxstad (Wyo. 1908)
- Shors v. Shors (Iowa 1906)
- Grannis v. Superior Court (Cal. 1904)
- Roby v. Roby (Idaho 1903)
- O'Brien v. O'Brien (Or. 1899)
- Rosenfeld v. Rosenfeld (Mo. Ct. App. 1895)
- State ex rel. Shrader v. Phillips (Fla. 1893)
- Bohnert v. Bohnert (Cal. 1891)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
This is a motion made in this Court for'alimony pending an appeal. We do not think any such jurisdiction is vested in this Court. Only appellate jurisdiction is conferred on this tribunal by the organic law defining its jurisdiction, and the jurisdiction invoked here is, in our view, original. It is true that power is also vested in this Court to issue all writs necessary or proper to the complete exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. But no writ is necessary or proper here. The appellate jurisdiction can be exercised without it. The power over this matter is vested in the Superior Court, even pending an appeal. The appeal does not take away its jurisdiction, as the matter is not affected by the judgment appealed from. (C. C. P., 946.) The cause is still pending in the Superior Court for the purpose sought to be attained by this motion.
The motion is denied.
Myrick and Sharpstein, JJ., concurred.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.