Hall v. Hall
Oregon Supreme Court
Appeal from Marion. Contend that acts or words, to constitute cruelty, must produce bodily pain or ill-healtb. To a sensitive person, words may constitute legal cruelty, but to an expert in the use of billingsgate, words have no terror. ' (Powelson v. Powelson, 22 Cal., 359; Johnson v. Johnson, 14 Cal., 460.) The facts do not constitute either cruelty or personal indignities. If the parties are in -pari delicto, equity will not relieve.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Marion. Contend that acts or words, to constitute cruelty, must produce bodily pain or ill-healtb. To a sensitive person, words may constitute legal cruelty, but to an expert in the use of billingsgate, words have no terror. ' (Powelson v. Powelson, 22 Cal., 359; Johnson v. Johnson, 14 Cal., 460.) The facts do not constitute either cruelty or personal indignities. If the parties are in -pari delicto, equity will not relieve. (Wood v. Wood, 2 Paige Oh., Ill; Mattox v. Mattox, 2 Ohio, 234.) It is not alleged in the pleadings that Mr. Hall has any property, and the prayer of the…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Watson, J.:
The respondent commenced this suit in the circuit court for Marion county, on February 3, 1881. On the 5th of the same month, the appellant also commenced a suit for divorce in the same court. The ground in each was 11 cruel and inhuman treatment, and personal indignities, rendering life bur*454densome.” The two cases were consolidated and tried together in the court below, and the respondent had a decree in her favor. The appellant’s suit was dismissed. From both decrees he has taken an appeal to this court.
The evidence is quite voluminous, but we deem it unnecessary to…
2Cited by13 opinions
- Spafford v. SpaffordSupreme Court of Alabama · 1917
- Schoren v. SchorenOregon Supreme Court · 1924
- Senkler v. BerryOregon Supreme Court · 1908
- Judd v. JuddMichigan Supreme Court · 1916
- Ross v. RossOregon Supreme Court · 1891
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.