TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Hanson v. Hanson

Hanson v. Hanson, 142 P. 348 (Or. 1914)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Oregon Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 26, 1914
Judges
Bean, Eakin, McBride, McNary
Citations
142 P. 34870 Or. 4691914 Ore. LEXIS 276
Disposition
Affirmed.
Headnotes
Divorce—Defenses—Misconduct of Plaintiff. In a suit for divorce, where defendant, files a counterclaim for divorce, and the evidence shows that both parties were in the habit of becoming intoxicated, that most or all of the altercations occurred when both were intoxicated, and that plaintiff’s reputation for chastity at her marriage was bad, which was known to defendant, a decree dismissing the complaint without cost to either party was proper. [As to recriminatory defenses in suits for divorce, see notes in 15 Am. Dec. 211; 86 Am. St. Rep. 333. As to degree of proof required to establish cause for divorce, see note in Ann. Cas. 1913B, 1216.]
Summary
From Benton: James W. Hamilton, Judge. This is a suit for divorce by Katie Hanson against Charles Hanson. The Circuit Court rendered a decree dismissing the complaint without costs to either party, and the plaintiff being dissatisfied, prosecutes this appeal.

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

Opinion of the Court — Eakin

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

*470 Department 2.

Mr. Justice Eakin

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a suit for divorce. The answer also contains a counterclaim for a divorce. The Circuit Court tried the case, and found that both plaintiff and defendant were in the habit of becoming intoxicated, and that most or all of the altercations related occurred when both were intoxicated; that plaintiff’s reputation for chastity at the time of her marriage with defendant was bad, which fact was well known to defendant;'that plaintiff and defendant are drunken and immoral, and that a court of equity will not undertake to grant relief where both parties are guilty of a violation of the marital obligations—and rendered a decree dismissing the complaint, without cost to either party.

After a review of the evidence, we are satisfied that the decree is a proper one, which we affirm, neither party to recover costs in this court. Affirmed.

Mr. Chief Justice McBride, Mr. Justice Bean and Mr. Justice McNary concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

1915: 11921: 11924: 11960: 11963: 119152026peak 1915 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State v. Rollo351 P.2d 422 (Or. 1960)
  2. State v. Crawford133 S.E.2d 232 (N.C. 1963)
  3. State v. Sing229 P. 921 (Or. 1924)
  4. State v. Wong Wen Teung195 P. 349 (Or. 1921)
  5. State v. Peare233 P. 256 (Or. 1915)

Most recent

  1. State v. Crawford133 S.E.2d 232 (N.C. 1963)
  2. State v. Rollo351 P.2d 422 (Or. 1960)
  3. State v. Sing229 P. 921 (Or. 1924)
  4. State v. Wong Wen Teung195 P. 349 (Or. 1921)
  5. State v. Peare233 P. 256 (Or. 1915)

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