Doyle v. Doyle
Court of Appeals of Oregon
1Concurrence
THORNTON, J.,
specially concurring.
In view of Wiles v. Wiles, 211 Or 163, 315 P2d 131 (1957), I am compelled to concur in the result.
Wiles is, however, distinguishable on the facts from the case at bar in some respects. For example, in Wiles the defendant was not guilty of unclean hands, nor had he remarried.
Divorce suits are treated as matters in equity. Cookson v. Cookson, 246 Or 118, 424 P2d 218 (1967). Defendant has come into court seeking equitable relief. It seems to me that where, as here, a husband and father leaves his child of tender years and knowingly permits his child to be…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- State of Tennessee v. BartonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1946
- Wiles v. WilesOregon Supreme Court · 1957
- Attebery v. AtteberyNebraska Supreme Court · 1961
- Cookson v. CooksonOregon Supreme Court · 1967