White v. White

Oregon Supreme Court

White v. White

91 P. 1134, 50 Or. 562, 1907 Ore. LEXIS 227

DecidedAugust 6, 1907

StatusPublished

This text of 91 P. 1134 (White v. White) 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

White v. White, 91 P. 1134, 50 Or. 562, 1907 Ore. LEXIS 227 (Or. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is a suit by the wife for a divorce on the ground of desertion. The answer denies the abandonment, and alleges that the defendant was obliged to leave his home by reason of the plaintiff’s cruel and inhuman treatment, the facts of which are stated by way of cross-bill, and the prayer is that the suit be dismissed; that he may have the divorce and also be allotted an undivided one-third of her real property, a description of which is given. The allegations of new matter in the answer and cross-complaint were denied in the reply, on which issues the cause was tried and a decree rendered as prayed for in the complaint, from which the defendant appeals.

No good purpose can be promoted by setting out any part of the testimony, a perusal of which persuades us that no error was committed in granting the plaintiff the divorce, which decree is affirmed. Ahetrmbd.

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

Per Curiam.

This is a suit by the wife for a divorce on the ground of desertion. The answer denies the abandonment, and alleges that the defendant was obliged to leave his home by reason of the plaintiff’s cruel and inhuman treatment, the facts of which are stated by way of cross-bill, and the prayer is that the suit be dismissed; that he may have the divorce and also be allotted an undivided one-third of her real property, a description of which is given. The allegations of new matter in the answer and cross-complaint were denied in the reply, on which issues the cause was tried and a decree rendered as prayed for in the complaint, from which the defendant appeals.

No good purpose can be promoted by setting out any part of the testimony, a perusal of which persuades us that no error was committed in granting the plaintiff the divorce, which decree is affirmed. Ahetrmbd.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 P. 1134, 50 Or. 562, 1907 Ore. LEXIS 227, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-v-white-or-1907.