Braly

Braly v. Reese

Good Law
1876 Cal. LEXIS 78·51 Cal. 447
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 1, 1876No. 2561California3,099 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

McKinstry, J.

I. Catherine Harrison could not be continued as natural tutrix, nor be appointed dative tutrix, after her second marriage.

In France, a widow about to marry and desiring to retain the guardianship of her infant children, should secure the assent of a “family meeting” before the second marriage. "If the mother, being guardian, desires to marry again, she is required, before the act of marriage, to convoke a family council, who shall decide whether the guardianship ought to be continued to her. In default of such convocation she shall lose the guardianship entirely; and her new husband shall be jointly and severally responsible for all the consequences of the guardianship which she shall have unduly, continued. *

In Louisiana, when the minor is the child of a first marriage, and the mother has already contracted a second, the judge may confer the tutorship on her “upon the advice of a family meeting convoked for that purpose. ” †

By the law of Mexico, however, where “family councils” are unknown, the mother who marries a second time, “by that act alone,” loses the tutory. ‡

In Spain, after the order of April 12, 1839, she could apply on petition, for dispensation of the legal…

concurrence Opinion

Crockett, J.

concurring:

dissent Opinion

Rhodes, J.

dissenting:

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.