De Haven v. Superior Court

In making the order denying the petition for writ of mandate, we relied upon the decision of this court in Anderson v. Superior Court, 103 Cal. App. 360 [ 284 Pac. 494 ], In that ease it was held that where an interlocutory decree of divorce did not in terms provide for and direct the payment of alimony, but merely referred to an agreement between the parties and purported to make same “a part and portion of this interlocutory judgment”, such reference did not constitute an order for payment of any sum. Petitioner now calls attention to decisions made in Tripp v. Superior Court, 61 Cal. App. 64 [ 214 Pac. 252 ], and Ex parte Weiler, 106 Cal. App. 485 [ 289 Pac. 645 ], and argues that under the authority of those decisions we should accept the conclusion that the amended interlocutory decree in De Haven v. De Haven contained an order for the payment of alimony, notwithstanding the fact that said amended interlocutory decree made no such order other than that, by reference only, it incorporated the ' property settlement agreement as a part of the decree “as if wholly and completely set forth at this point”.

The facts shown in the record of the court below, as exhibited by the…