Wetmore v. Wetmore

67 P. 98, 40 Or. 332, 1902 Ore. LEXIS 6
Oregon Supreme Court·Decided January 6, 1902·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is a suit for divorce and to compel a conveyance from the defendant to the plaintiff of certain real estate, which it is alleged was purchased with her money. The complaint was dismissed by the court below, and the plaintiff appeals. An examination of the record satisfies us that the testimony is not sufficient to justify a decree of divorce, and, as the title to real estate cannot be litigated in a proceeding of this kind except as incident thereto [Houston v. Timmerman, 17 Or. 499 (21 Pac. 1037, 4 L. R. A. 716, 11 Am. St. Rep. 848); Uhl v. Uhl, 52 Cal. 250; Peck v. Peck, 66 Mich. 586 (33 N. W. 893)], the decree is affirmed. Affirmed.

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

Wetmore v. Wetmore, 67 P. 98, 40 Or. 332, 1902 Ore. LEXIS 6 (Or. 1902).

67 P. 98 (Wetmore v. Wetmore) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gooden v. Gooden
176 P.2d 634 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1947)
Taylor v. Taylor
103 P. 524 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1909)