TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Wakefield v. Wakefield

Wakefield v. Wakefield, 185 P. 921 (Or. 1919)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Oregon Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 16, 1919
Judges
Bean
Citations
185 P. 92194 Or. 6051919 Ore. LEXIS 249
Disposition
Affirmed.
Headnotes
Divorce — Decree Where Both Parties are at Fault. 1. In divorce action where both parties were equally at fault, neither is entitled to equitable relief.
Summary
From Lake: L. F. Conn, Judge. In Banc. This is a suit for a divorce. The complaint charges the defendant with acts of cruelty and infidelity. The defendant, in his answer, denies the allegations of the complaint and in an affirmative answer also charges the plaintiff with cruelty and infidelity. The reply put in issue the averments of the answer. A large amount of testimony was taken consisting of over five hundred typewritten pages. The Circuit Court found and decreed that both defendant and plaintiff were, equally at fault, and that neither is entitled to any relief in a court of equity. Defendant 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 — Bean

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

BEAN, J.

1. It appears from the record that the plaintiff and defendant intermarried on April 10, 1903, and that there are two children, the issue of such marriage, namely, Daisy Wakefield, a daughter of the age of fourteen years, and Orin Wakefield, a son eleven years of age. At the time of their marriage plaintiff and defendant each had a small number of livestock consisting of horses and cattle. They re- . sided at different places in Lake County and accumulated about $12,000 in property. ,The parties have , continually for the past few years had serious marital difficulties. The whole record which is extremely nauseating and clearly shows wrong upon the part of both husband and wife is a shock to decency. We concur in the findings of the trial court that neither of the parties is entitled to equitable relief. A court of equity should not serve as a mere handmaid to regulate or promote the lustful desires and objects of the parties to a divorce suit. We are impelled to refrain from adding any more words than absolutely necessary to this record of matrimonial sadness, infidelity and wrong. A rehearsal of testimony would not benefit the parties or their children or anyone else. It is regrettable to say that it is a matter of judicial record and can be examined should necessity require.

*607 The court allowed the plaintiff the sum of $487, as suit money and defendant inter alia assigns this as error. From an examination of the record, taking into consideration the time consumed in the trial of the suit, the number of witnesses appearing on behalf of plaintiff and the financial condition of plaintiff and defendant, we think the amount allowed was reasonable and just.

The decree of the lower court is affirmed.

Aeeiemed. Rehearing Denied.

How later courts describe this case

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

1929: 11946: 119292026peak 1929 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Thomsen v. Thomsen275 P. 673 (Or. 1929)
  2. MacFadden v. MacFadden26 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 1946)

Most recent

  1. MacFadden v. MacFadden26 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 1946)
  2. Thomsen v. Thomsen275 P. 673 (Or. 1929)

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