Gadsby v. Gadsby

131 P. 1022, 65 Or. 309, 1913 Ore. LEXIS 268
CourtOregon Supreme Court
DecidedApril 30, 1913
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 131 P. 1022 (Gadsby v. Gadsby) 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
Gadsby v. Gadsby, 131 P. 1022, 65 Or. 309, 1913 Ore. LEXIS 268 (Or. 1913).

Opinion

Opinion by

Mr. Chief Justice McBride.

The testimony in this case is voluminous, and the bulk of it comes from the parties and their immediate relatives, whose interference in the domestic affairs of these young people seems to have been the origin of their difficulties. In view of the interested character of the oral testimony, we rely mostly upon the correspondence between the parties, and this indicates clearly that the defendant refused to be reconciled to his wife, and repudiated her in the strongest language. She does not appear to have an ideal disposition and temperament, but there is nothing in the testimony to justify the extreme measures indicated by defendant in his letters. Taking this testimony in defendant’s own handwriting, we conclude that the charge of desertion is made out by plaintiff. There is nothing in the contention that defendant was the owner of the real property described in the complaint or of any interest therein. "We refrain from putting permanently into the reports of this court any account of the recriminations and disputes between the parties or their relatives, and content ourselves with merely stating our conclusions.

A decree will be entered here granting plaintiff a divorce from defendant and the custody of the minor child, and requiring defendant to pay to plaintiff $35 [311]*311per month toward the support of said minor child. It will be further directed that defendant be allowed to visit the child once a month if he so desires, and that he be respectfully received and treated on such visits. The provisions as to maintenance of and visiting the child are subject to modification in the Circuit Court to the same extent as if this decree had been originally entered in said court.

Reversed : Decree Rendered.

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

Related

State v. Trujillo
489 P.2d 977 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1971)
Howland v. Iron Fireman Manufacturing Co.
215 P.2d 380 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1949)
Howland v. Iron Fireman Mfg. Co.
215 P.2d 380 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1949)
Carruthers v. Phillips
131 P.2d 193 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1942)
Goen v. Hamilton
159 S.W.2d 231 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1942)
Pettigrove v. Corvallis Lumber Mfg. Co.
21 P.2d 198 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1933)
Clark v. Shea
279 P. 539 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1929)
Holder v. Harris
254 P. 1021 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1927)
Bailey v. Davis
193 N.W. 658 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1922)
Wallace v. McKenna
173 P. 749 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1918)
Rothchild Bros. v. Kennedy
169 P. 102 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1917)
Sorenson v. Kribs
161 P. 405 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1916)
Taggart v. Hunter
150 P. 738 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1915)
Taylor v. Peterson
147 P. 520 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1915)
Meier & Frank Co. v. Mitlehner
146 P. 796 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1915)
Sorenson v. Smith
129 P. 757 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1913)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
131 P. 1022, 65 Or. 309, 1913 Ore. LEXIS 268, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gadsby-v-gadsby-or-1913.