Diettrich v. Haberman
| Decision Date | 06 March 1928 |
| Citation | 124 Or. 508,264 P. 845 |
| Parties | DIETTRICH v. HABERMAN. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Department 1.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County; George Rossman, Judge.
Action by Mary Diettrich against Alexander Haberman. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Harold V. Newlin, of Portland, for appellant.
George S. Shepherd, of Portland, for respondent.
This is an appeal from a judgment entered on a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against the defendant. The plaintiff was formerly the wife of defendant. The parties have been divorced. At the time the divorce was granted, there was a minor child of plaintiff and defendant, who was born after the suit for divorce was commenced, and before the final decree was entered. Before the decree of divorce was entered, the parties contracted in writing with each other whereby the defendant promised to pay to plaintiff, who was then his wife, the sum of $10 a month for her support and that of the minor child, until the child became of the age of fourteen years. This action is to recover the sums unpaid under that contract. The defendant contends that the contract is illegal and was a collusive agreement, made contrary to public policy.
We find no grounds for such contention, and, finding no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Percival v. Luce
...beneficiary may sue. In Maxwell v. Boyd, 123 Mo.App. 334, 100 S.W. 540; Marks v. Wooster, Mo.App., 199 S.W. 446; Diettrich v. Haberman, 124 Or. 508, 264 P. 845, and Stone v. Bayley, 75 Wash. 184, 134 P. 820, 48 L.R.A.,NS., 429, cited by plaintiff, no question of third party beneficiaries wa......