France v. France
Oregon Supreme Court
From Marion: Percy R. Kelly, Judge. Department 1. This is an action based upon a decree, and to enforce one of the requirements thereof. The complaint discloses that on November 13, 1913, a decree of divorce was rendered between the parties hereto, in a suit wherein the present plaintiff was defendant and the present defendant was plaintiff.
Read the full summary
From Marion: Percy R. Kelly, Judge. Department 1. This is an action based upon a decree, and to enforce one of the requirements thereof. The complaint discloses that on November 13, 1913, a decree of divorce was rendered between the parties hereto, in a suit wherein the present plaintiff was defendant and the present defendant was plaintiff. The decree referred to is made a part of the complaint, and the particular clause upon which this action is founded reads as follows: “That plaintiff pay the joint indebtedness mentioned herein, amounting to approximately $900. ’ ’ The complaint alleges…
1Opinion of the CourtBenson, J.
The demurrer should have been sustained. The decree upon which the action is founded! is made a part of the complaint, and it appears therein, that it ordered this defendant to pay the “joint indebtedness mentioned herein,” and none is specified. It is very doubtful as to whether or not it is permissible to look elsewhere for such obligations, since there is *416nothing ambiguous or obscure in the language of the decree, but a total absence of the necessary specification, and it is beyond the power of the court to add to the decree. It further appears from the allegations of the complaint, that…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Frost v. ParkerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1884
- Holmes v. PageOregon Supreme Court · 1890
- Dale v. MarvinOregon Supreme Court · 1915