TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Munroe v. Munroe

JACKSON MUNROE v. EDITH MUNROE

Munroe v. Munroe, 26 P. 838 (Or. 1891)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Oregon Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
April 30, 1891
Judges
Strahan
Citations
26 P. 83820 Or. 5791891 Ore. LEXIS 123
Disposition
Reversed.
Headnotes
Marriage and Divorce — Fraud — Case in Judgment. — Facts examined and held that plaintiff was entitled to a decree dissolving the marriage, and also for SI,487 and interest, money advanced at defendant’s request before said marriage, upon the fraudulent representations and statements of the defendant.
Summary
Washington county: F. J. Taylor, Judge. Plaintiff appeals. This is a suit for divorce. The plaintiff has also joined in the same suit a claim to recover $1,487 advanced by him at the defendant’s request to pay off a certain mortgage on real property in Washington county then owned by defendant’s mother, and for other equitable relief. It is charged that the defendant induced the plaintiff to pay and advance $1,487 by means of fraudulent statements, promises and representations, all of which are particularly alleged. The answer denies most of plaintiff’s allegations, and then recriminates desertion of the defendant by the plaintiff, and there is no objection that there is a misjoinder of causes of suit. The court dismissed the complaint, as well as the defendant’s cross-complaint, from which decree dismissing the complaint the plaintiff has appealed.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Strahan

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Strahan, O. J.

— After carefully considering the evidence in this case, we have no doubt that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion. The parties were married at Vancouver and returned to Portland where they spent one night together and then the defendant returned to her home in Washington county and never thereafter lived with the plaintiff, and it satifactorily appears from all the circumstances that at the time of the marriage she did not intend to live with him. It is unnecessary to recapitulate the evidence. It must be painful enough in its details to both parties.

The plaintiff must also have a decree for the $1,487 and *580 its interest. Justice would not be complete without it. This money was advanced at the request of the defendant upon the most delusive hopes and promises, which she did not intend to fulfil, but they were made only for the purpose of overreaching the plaintiff and obtaining his money. Under the circumstances the so-called release executed at the moment of the marriage ceremony cannot be permitted to stand in the way of this result. It was a part and parcel of the same fraudulent means and purpose which characterized. the defendant’s conduct with the plaintiff in all of these transactions.

Let the decree of the court below be reversed and a decree be entered here in accordance with this opinion.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1928: 11951: 119282026peak 1928 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Baird v. Baird232 P.2d 348 (Mont. 1951)
  2. Kellogg v. Kellogg263 P. 385 (Or. 1928)

Most recent

  1. Baird v. Baird232 P.2d 348 (Mont. 1951)
  2. Kellogg v. Kellogg263 P. 385 (Or. 1928)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list