Legal Opinion

Sedlak v. Sedlak

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided March 7, 1887PublishedCited by 17 opinions

Marion County.^ Plaintiff appeals.

1Opinion of the CourtLord, C. J.

This is a suit to impeach a decree for fraud. The final decree was entered nearly thirty years ago, granting to the plaintiff a divorce and the custody of her children, and an interest in the defendant’s estate. The benefits of that decree she has accepted, taking the divorce, receiving the children, and the money awarded her under it. As such party to the record, after receiving all the advantages of the decree, and acquiescing in it for so many years, can she now be heard to impeach it on the ground that the decree was entered without notice, or her knowledge or consent ? During all this…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Badger v. BadgerSupreme Court of the United States · 1865
  2. Sullivan v. Portland & Kennebec RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
  3. Hayward v. National BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1878

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Arthur v. IsraelSupreme Court of Colorado · 1890
  2. Chapman v. ChapmanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1916
  3. Bruguiere v. BruguiereCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
  4. Wilson v. WilsonOregon Supreme Court · 1902
  5. Haggerty v. NoblesOregon Supreme Court · 1966

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API