Billion v. Billion

256 P. 769, 256 P. 389, 122 Or. 68, 1927 Ore. LEXIS 141
CourtOregon Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 25, 1927
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 256 P. 769 (Billion v. Billion) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Oregon Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Billion v. Billion, 256 P. 769, 256 P. 389, 122 Or. 68, 1927 Ore. LEXIS 141 (Or. 1927).

Opinions

COSHOW, J.

The plaintiff appeals from the decree denying her a divorce and dismissing her complaint. The defendant appeals from that part of the decree requiring him to pay $300 additional attorney’s fee for the benefit of the plaintiff. The decree from which the appeal is taken was entered December 31, 1923. The plaintiff began another suit for divorce from the defendant January 21, 1924. February 28, 1924, she gave notice of her appeal from the decree rendered December 21, 1923. On May 24, 1924, defendant filed his motion to dismiss this appeal because plaintiff was prosecuting the second suit for divorce. On March 26, 1926, a decree was entered in the second suit granting to plaintiff a divorce from the defendant. Therefore on August 2, 1926, defendant renewed his motion to dismiss the appeal now under consideration. That motion was denied with permission to present it at the argument on the merits. The case was argued on the merits in this court on March 25, 1927. Plaintiff having been granted a divorce subsequent to this appeal is not entitled to be heard on the appeal. This appeal has become a moot question. The object sought by the appeal is a divorce. That object has been attained. The controversy between plaintiff and defendant is at an end: State ex rel. v. Webster, 58 Or. 376 (114 Pac. 932); Addison v. Addison, 117 Or. 80, 82 (242 Pac. 832); Moores v. Moores, 36 Or. 261, 265 (59 Pac. *70 327); Ehrman v, Astoria R. R. Co., 26 Or. 377 (38 Pac. 306), Samuel v. Samuel, 59 Kan. 335 (52 Pac. 889).

The motion to dismiss is allowed and plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed. Appeal Dismissed.

Burnett, C. J., and McBride and Band, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

PACIFIC NORTHWEST DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. Holloway
546 P.2d 1063 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1976)
Drucker v. Drucker
488 P.2d 1377 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1971)
Goodman v. Goodman
105 P.2d 1091 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1940)
State ex rel. Tolls v. Tolls
85 P.2d 366 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1938)
Carlton v. Carlton
65 P.2d 1417 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1937)
Blake v. Blake
31 P.2d 768 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1934)
Billion v. Billion
3 P.2d 1113 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1931)
Aldrich v. Aldrich
276 P. 267 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1929)
Jerman v. Jerman
275 P. 915 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1929)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
256 P. 769, 256 P. 389, 122 Or. 68, 1927 Ore. LEXIS 141, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/billion-v-billion-or-1927.