Ellenburg v. Ellenburg

Oregon Supreme Court

Ellenburg v. Ellenburg

245 P. 1116, 118 Or. 177, 1926 Ore. LEXIS 78

DecidedMarch 3, 1926

StatusPublished

This text of 245 P. 1116 (Ellenburg v. Ellenburg) 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

Ellenburg v. Ellenburg, 245 P. 1116, 118 Or. 177, 1926 Ore. LEXIS 78 (Or. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

McBRIDE, C. J.

This is a suit for a divorce, the grounds being cruel and inhuman treatment and personal indignities. The case was carefully tried in the lower court, and the findings of fact and decree there were in favor of plaintiff. The testimony is somewhat conflicting, but we think that the weight of it indicates that defendant’s treatment of plaintiff was not that of an affectionate husband, and was such as would seriously affect the health of a sensitive woman as plaintiff appeared to he. A recital of the testimony, and a discussion of the weight attributed to the statements of various witnesses would simply encumber the record. Suffice it to say *178 that we agree substantially with the findings of the Circuit Court, and the decree is therefore affirmed.

Affirmed. Motion to Becall Mandate Denied.

Burnett, Band and Coshow, JJ., concur.

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

McBRIDE, C. J.

This is a suit for a divorce, the grounds being cruel and inhuman treatment and personal indignities. The case was carefully tried in the lower court, and the findings of fact and decree there were in favor of plaintiff. The testimony is somewhat conflicting, but we think that the weight of it indicates that defendant’s treatment of plaintiff was not that of an affectionate husband, and was such as would seriously affect the health of a sensitive woman as plaintiff appeared to he. A recital of the testimony, and a discussion of the weight attributed to the statements of various witnesses would simply encumber the record. Suffice it to say *178 that we agree substantially with the findings of the Circuit Court, and the decree is therefore affirmed.

Affirmed. Motion to Becall Mandate Denied.

Burnett, Band and Coshow, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 P. 1116, 118 Or. 177, 1926 Ore. LEXIS 78, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ellenburg-v-ellenburg-or-1926.