Munroe v. Munroe

Oregon Supreme Court

Munroe v. Munroe

26 P. 838, 20 Or. 579, 1891 Ore. LEXIS 123

CourtOregon Supreme Court

DecidedApril 30, 1891

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 26 P. 838 (Munroe v. Munroe) 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

Munroe v. Munroe, 26 P. 838, 20 Or. 579, 1891 Ore. LEXIS 123 (Or. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Strahan, O. J.

— After carefully considering the evidence in this case, we have no doubt that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion. The parties were married at Vancouver and returned to Portland where they spent one night together and then the defendant returned to her home in Washington county and never thereafter lived with the plaintiff, and it satifactorily appears from all the circumstances that at the time of the marriage she did not intend to live with him. It is unnecessary to recapitulate the evidence. It must be painful enough in its details to both parties.

The plaintiff must also have a decree for the $1,487 and [580]*580its interest. Justice would not be complete without it. This money was advanced at the request of the defendant upon the most delusive hopes and promises, which she did not intend to fulfil, but they were made only for the purpose of overreaching the plaintiff and obtaining his money. Under the circumstances the so-called release executed at the moment of the marriage ceremony cannot be permitted to stand in the way of this result. It was a part and parcel of the same fraudulent means and purpose which characterized. the defendant’s conduct with the plaintiff in all of these transactions.

Let the decree of the court below be reversed and a decree be entered here in accordance with this opinion.

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

Strahan, O. J.

— After carefully considering the evidence in this case, we have no doubt that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion. The parties were married at Vancouver and returned to Portland where they spent one night together and then the defendant returned to her home in Washington county and never thereafter lived with the plaintiff, and it satifactorily appears from all the circumstances that at the time of the marriage she did not intend to live with him. It is unnecessary to recapitulate the evidence. It must be painful enough in its details to both parties.

The plaintiff must also have a decree for the $1,487 and [580]*580its interest. Justice would not be complete without it. This money was advanced at the request of the defendant upon the most delusive hopes and promises, which she did not intend to fulfil, but they were made only for the purpose of overreaching the plaintiff and obtaining his money. Under the circumstances the so-called release executed at the moment of the marriage ceremony cannot be permitted to stand in the way of this result. It was a part and parcel of the same fraudulent means and purpose which characterized. the defendant’s conduct with the plaintiff in all of these transactions.

Let the decree of the court below be reversed and a decree be entered here in accordance with this opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 P. 838, 20 Or. 579, 1891 Ore. LEXIS 123, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/munroe-v-munroe-or-1891.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack