Wetmore v. Wetmore
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Per Curiam.
This is a suit for divorce and to compel a conveyance from the defendant to the plaintiff of certain real estate, which it is alleged was purchased with her money. The complaint was dismissed by the court below, and the plaintiff appeals. An examination of the record satisfies us that the testimony is not sufficient to justify a decree of divorce, and, as the title to real estate cannot be litigated in a proceeding of this kind except as incident thereto [Houston v. Timmerman, 17 Or. 499 ( 21 Pac. 1037 , 4 L. R. A. 716, 11 Am. St. Rep. 848 ); Uhl v. Uhl, 52 Cal. 250 ; Peck v. Peck, 66 Mich. 586 ( 33 N. W. 893 )], the decree is affirmed. Affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
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.