Matlock v. Matlock
Oregon Supreme Court
From Multnomah: William N. Gatens, Judge. Department 1. Statement by Mr. Justice Burnett. This is a suit by a wife against her husband for separate maintenance. She alleges their marriage April 30, 1911, recites in detail many of the troubles of the wedded life of about nine months, and says that she has been compelled on account thereof to live separate from the defendant without any fault on her part.
Read the full summary
From Multnomah: William N. Gatens, Judge. Department 1. Statement by Mr. Justice Burnett. This is a suit by a wife against her husband for separate maintenance. She alleges their marriage April 30, 1911, recites in detail many of the troubles of the wedded life of about nine months, and says that she has been compelled on account thereof to live separate from the defendant without any fault on her part. The answer traverses all the plaintiff’s accusations against the defendant and pleads in estoppel a decree in a former divorce case between these parties wherein substantially all the…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Burnett
1. The principal question to be determined is the effect of the decree in the suit for divorce. In the decision *80reported, 72 Or. 330 (143 Pac. 1010), the issue between these same parties in that litigation was carefully considered, and it is there stated by Mr. Justice McNary :
“Believing, from a studious review of the record, that both parties are to blame for their domestic infelicity, a decree for a divorce must be withheld.”
This was a direct adjudication that the plaintiff here was not without fault in the disturbance of the marriage relation existing between the parties. This fact was…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Cromwell v. County of SacSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Harding v. HardingSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
- White v. LaddOregon Supreme Court · 1902
- Ruckman v. Union Railway Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1904
- Miller v. MillerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1889
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- First Nat. Bank of Burns v. BucklandOregon Supreme Court · 1929
- Kelley v. KelleyOregon Supreme Court · 1948
- Leahy v. LeahyOregon Supreme Court · 1956
- Hoffmann v. HoffmannSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1928
- In re the Dissolution of the Marriage of GreisamerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1976
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.