Ashford v. Ashford
Citation | 249 P.2d 968,201 Or. 206 |
Parties | ASHFORD v. ASHFORD et al. |
Decision Date | 14 November 1952 |
Court | Supreme Court of Oregon |
Joseph H. Page, of Portland, for motion.
Henderson & Dickinson, of Portland, for appellant.
Edward A. Boyrie, of Portland, for intervenor-respondent.
This is on the motion of Edna Mae Ashford, defendant-respondent, for an allowance of attorney's fees for services in preparing her brief and appearance of her counsel in this court in a pending appeal in a suit for divorce wherein the defendant wife prevailed in the lower court.
The application of the respondent is settled by the authority of Edwards v. Edwards, 191 Or. 275, 281 et seq., 227 P.2d 975, where we held that this court is without authority to make such an allowance. We there said in 191 Or. at page 284, 227 P.2d at page 979;
In terms of our own inclination, we reluctantly deny the relief which the respondent seeks and do so solely for the reasons given in Edwards v. Edwards, supra. Her supporting affidavit, if true, delineates a picture of financial hardship and impoverishment which well might deny to the respondent a fair opportunity to adequately present and defend her cause in this court, when the appeal instigated by her appellant husband is heard here on its merits. The apparent injustice flowing from a want of sufficient power here to make an appropriate answer to respondent's request is accentuated by a record which reveals that the appellant husband is an able-bodied man with a substantial income and by the further fact that a parcel of real property involved in the suit threatens to be lost through a pending mortgage foreclosure; but the course followed concerning this and other meritorious motions of like nature must necessarily continue until the legislative assembly evolves some method which will satisfactorily make provision for the alleviation of conditions reflected by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jackson v. United States National Bank, Portland, Ore.
...probate jurisdiction (ORS 3.340; cf: Wadhams & Co. v. State Tax Commission, 1954, 202 Or. 132, 273 P.2d 440, 442; Ashford v. Ashford, 1954, 201 Or. 206, 249 P.2d 968, 268 P.2d 382, 385; Ex parte Quinn, 1951, 192 Or. 254, 233 P.2d 767, This is true even though the legislature conferred this ......
-
Franklin v. Biggs
...'that the marriage relation be protected, and every reasonable doubt should be resolved in favor of a valid marriage.' Ashford v. Ashford, 201 Or. 206, 223, 249 P.2d 968, 268 P.2d 382, 389 (1954). See also, Edgren v. Reissner, 239 Or. 212, 396 P.2d 564 (1964), an alienation of affections su......
-
Booker's Estate, Matter of
...man and woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage.'* * *.'See also, Ashford v. Ashford, 201 Or. 206, 249 P.2d 968, 268 P.2d 382 (1954); Franklin v. Biggs, 14 Or.App. 450, 513 P.2d 1216, Sup.Ct. Review denied (1973).5 See Annotation, Presu......
-
Marriage of McDaniel, Matter of, E
...of Portland et al., 115 Or. 1, 9, 235 P. 677 (1925); Bitting v. Douglas County, 24 Or. 406, 410, 33 P. 981 (1893); see Ashford v. Ashford, 201 Or. 206, 219, 249 P.2d 968, 268 P.2d 382 The statutes concerning notice and substituted service at the time of this proceeding were ORS 109.740, 109......