Camirand v. De Lude

• Decision Date: 14 February 1928
• Parties: CAMIRAND v. DE LUDE.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

264 P. 355

124 Or. 189

CAMIRAND v. DE LUDE.

Supreme Court of Oregon

February 14, 1928

Department 1.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County; Louis P. Hewitt, Judge.

Action by Leona Camirand against Ann De Lude. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions to dismiss the action.

Paul R. Harris, of Portland (Davis & Farrell, of Portland, on the brief), for appellant.

Andrew Hansen, of Portland (W. H. Hallam, of Portland, on the brief), for respondent.

RAND C.J.

This is an action in which the plaintiff is seeking to recover damages for the alleged alienation of the affections of her husband. From a judgment entered upon the verdict, defendant has appealed.

Defendant predicates error upon the refusal of the court to grant a motion for a nonsuit, the overruling of a motion for a directed verdict, and the denial of a motion to withdraw from the consideration of the jury the issue made by the pleadings of whether the defendant had sustained adulterous relations with plaintiff's husband.

It appears from the evidence that plaintiff and her husband were married in Canada; that they had three children, and that after living in Canada about ten years, they moved to Portland where they were living at the time of the alleged wrongful acts of defendant. Plaintiff was born in Belgium and her husband is a French-Canadian. Defendant was fifty-two years of age and was residing with her husband and son at their home in Portland. The whole evidence shows, and it is uncontradicted, that plaintiff was very quarrelsome and frequently assaulted her husband, using for that purpose a broom handle, a club, an iron bar, or anything else which might be available upon the occasion, and that prior to the time referred to in the complaint she drove her husband from home with a club, chasing him out into the street and beating him until he was able to escape by running away from her that, at said time, plaintiff's husband was working with defendant's son at a bakery, both working night shifts and after being driven away from home, plaintiff's husband went to live in an apartment house; that, on or about the 22d of June, 1922, at the invitation of defendant's son, he went to live with defendant's son, both occupying and paying the rental of the son's room at defendant's home, and remained there until about the 1st of September, 1922, when the husband returned to his own...