Hoss v. Hoss

Oregon Supreme Court

Hoss v. Hoss

419 P.2d 940, 245 Or. 1, 1966 Ore. LEXIS 344

CourtOregon Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 10, 1966

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 419 P.2d 940 (Hoss v. Hoss) 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

Hoss v. Hoss, 419 P.2d 940, 245 Or. 1, 1966 Ore. LEXIS 344 (Or. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant husband, contending that his wife failed to prove cruel and inhuman treatment under ORS 107.030 (6), appeals from a decree of divorce in favor of the plaintiff.

The trial court found that the husband was extremely critical of his wife, and over a period of time had abused her verbally, although not physically. The court also found that the husband was unnecessarily rigid and punitive toward the children, and that he abused them physically, knowing that such conduct offended the wife. Whether or not cruelty to children [3]*3in and of itself equals cruelty to the other spouse, such conduct can be the cause of marital discord with resultant cruelties growing out of the discord. We are satisfied that the record supports the findings of cruelty.

We are likewise satisfied that the case can be distinguished from those in which the parties were equally at fault. See, e.g., Zavin v. Zavin, 229 Or 289, 366 P2d 733 (1961), where both parties succeeded in proving that neither was entitled to relief.

In the case at bar, while the wife’s conduct for many years was that of a cold and unwilling prisoner in a marriage from which she wanted to escape, the husband’s proof fell short of proving that her lack of affection constituted cruelty.

Defendant complains that the trial court was unable to restrain an impulse to browbeat the defendant and another witness. While an overbearing attitude on the bench is never to be commended, the record in this case reveals nothing that would justify reversal.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Defendant husband, contending that his wife failed to prove cruel and inhuman treatment under ORS 107.030 (6), appeals from a decree of divorce in favor of the plaintiff.

The trial court found that the husband was extremely critical of his wife, and over a period of time had abused her verbally, although not physically. The court also found that the husband was unnecessarily rigid and punitive toward the children, and that he abused them physically, knowing that such conduct offended the wife. Whether or not cruelty to children [3]*3in and of itself equals cruelty to the other spouse, such conduct can be the cause of marital discord with resultant cruelties growing out of the discord. We are satisfied that the record supports the findings of cruelty.

We are likewise satisfied that the case can be distinguished from those in which the parties were equally at fault. See, e.g., Zavin v. Zavin, 229 Or 289, 366 P2d 733 (1961), where both parties succeeded in proving that neither was entitled to relief.

In the case at bar, while the wife’s conduct for many years was that of a cold and unwilling prisoner in a marriage from which she wanted to escape, the husband’s proof fell short of proving that her lack of affection constituted cruelty.

Defendant complains that the trial court was unable to restrain an impulse to browbeat the defendant and another witness. While an overbearing attitude on the bench is never to be commended, the record in this case reveals nothing that would justify reversal.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

419 P.2d 940, 245 Or. 1, 1966 Ore. LEXIS 344, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoss-v-hoss-or-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack