TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Gadsby v. Gadsby

Gadsby v. Gadsby, 131 P. 1022 (Or. 1913)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Oregon Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
April 30, 1913
Judges
McBride
Citations
131 P. 102265 Or. 3091913 Ore. LEXIS 268
Disposition
Reversed: Decree Rendered.
Headnotes
Divorce — Decree—Provisions for Maintenance — Modifications. A decree rendered By the Supreme Court on appeal which grants a divorce, and awards the custody of the children, and makes provisions for their maintenance and control, is subject to modification in the Circuit Court as to maintenance and control to the same extent as if originally entered there. [As to effeet of decrees of divorce, see note in 65 Am. Dec. 355. As to amendments of judgments after appeal, see note in 14 Am. Dee. 516.]
Summary
From Multnomah: William N. Gatens, Judge. This is a suit for divorce by Beatrice L. Gadsby against Walter M. Gadsby. From a decree dismissing the amended complaint of plaintiff and the cross-complaint of defendant, the plaintiff appeals.

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

Opinion of the Court — McBride

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

Opinion by Mr. Chief Justice McBride.

The testimony in this case is voluminous, and the bulk of it comes from the parties and their immediate relatives, whose interference in the domestic affairs of these young people seems to have been the origin of their difficulties. In view of the interested character of the oral testimony, we rely mostly upon the correspondence between the parties, and this indicates clearly that the defendant refused to be reconciled to his wife, and repudiated her in the strongest language. She does not appear to have an ideal disposition and temperament, but there is nothing in the testimony to justify the extreme measures indicated by defendant in his letters. Taking this testimony in defendant’s own handwriting, we conclude that the charge of desertion is made out by plaintiff. There is nothing in the contention that defendant was the owner of the real property described in the complaint or of any interest therein. "We refrain from putting permanently into the reports of this court any account of the recriminations and disputes between the parties or their relatives, and content ourselves with merely stating our conclusions.

A decree will be entered here granting plaintiff a divorce from defendant and the custody of the minor child, and requiring defendant to pay to plaintiff $35 *311 per month toward the support of said minor child. It will be further directed that defendant be allowed to visit the child once a month if he so desires, and that he be respectfully received and treated on such visits. The provisions as to maintenance of and visiting the child are subject to modification in the Circuit Court to the same extent as if this decree had been originally entered in said court.

Reversed : Decree Rendered.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 16 cases

View all citing references →
1915: 31916: 11917: 11918: 11922: 11927: 11929: 21933: 11942: 21949: 21971: 119152026peak 1915 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Howland v. Iron Fireman Manufacturing Co.215 P.2d 380 (Or. 1949)
  2. Howland v. Iron Fireman Mfg. Co.215 P.2d 380 (Or. 1949)
  3. Carruthers v. Phillips131 P.2d 193 (Or. 1942)
  4. Pettigrove v. Corvallis Lumber Mfg. Co.21 P.2d 198 (Or. 1933)
  5. Sorenson v. Kribs161 P. 405 (Or. 1916)
  6. Goen v. Hamilton159 S.W.2d 231 (Tex. App. 1942)

Most recent

  1. State v. Trujillo489 P.2d 977 (Or. Ct. App. 1971)
  2. Howland v. Iron Fireman Manufacturing Co.215 P.2d 380 (Or. 1949)
  3. Howland v. Iron Fireman Mfg. Co.215 P.2d 380 (Or. 1949)
  4. Carruthers v. Phillips131 P.2d 193 (Or. 1942)
  5. Goen v. Hamilton159 S.W.2d 231 (Tex. App. 1942)
  6. Pettigrove v. Corvallis Lumber Mfg. Co.21 P.2d 198 (Or. 1933)

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