Forsby v. Forsby
| Decision Date | 26 December 1929 |
| Docket Number | 22010. |
| Citation | 155 Wash. 33,283 P. 457 |
| Parties | FORSBY v. FORSBY. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 2.
Appeal from Superior Court, King County; John A. Frater, Judge.
Suit by Tynne Forsby against Fred Forsby, wherein defendant filed a cross-complaint. Plaintiff's motion for an order voluntarily dismissing her complaint was denied and decree granting an interlocutory divorce to plaintiff, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions.
Agnes N. Richmond, of Renton, for appellant.
Murphy & Kumm and Orville C. Hatch, Jr., all of Seattle, for respondent.
Appellant Tynne Forsby, brought this suit stating a cause of action for divorce and asking for the custody of all the children and for a disposition of the property of the parties. Respondent Fred Forsby, filed an answer and cross-complaint denying the material allegations of the complaint and alleging cause for divorce, asked that he be granted a divorce, custody of two of the children, and an equitable division of the property. A reply was filed denying the material allegations of the cross-complaint for divorce. At the conclusion of the taking of testimony, the trial judge orally stated that the plaintiff was entitled to an interlocutory order or decree of divorce. Some days thereafter the plaintiff filed a motion for an order voluntarily dismissing her complaint; the court at that time not having made or signed findings of fact conclusions of law, or decree. The motion was denied, and thereafter formal findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an interlocutory decree were made and signed by the trial court and filed, granting an interlocutory divorce to the plaintiff. She has appealed.
Mention has been made in the brief and argument on behalf of the respondent of some agreement made by the parties at the trial which it is argued precludes the appellant from withdrawing her application for a divorce. Our understanding of the record in that respect is that there was such stipulation as to property rights. However, the controlling thing in determining the rights of the parties was the matter of divorce, concerning which there was not and could not have been any agreement between the parties that the court would for a moment have recognized--divorces are granted for cause not upon agreement of the parties. Here the court has granted the appellant a divorce against her final expressed wish. We understand the rule to be that either party to a divorce action who asks for a divorce may withdraw the demand any time before the decree is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Van DeRyt v. Van DeRyt
...the law encourages the condoning of marital infidelities. See Brodsky v. Brodsky (1925), 164 Minn. 102, 204 N.W. 915; Forsby v. Forsby (1929), 155 Wash. 33, 283 P. 457; Studley v. Studley (1927), 141 Wash. 531, 252 P. 99; Cohen v. Cohen (1946), 73 Cal.App.2d 330, 166 [215 N.E.2d 707] P.2d 6......
-
Sheffer v. Sheffer
... ... Chamberlain, 108 Colo. 538. Stover v. Stover, 7 Idaho, ... 185. Coon v. Coon, 163 Mich. 644. Pickles v ... Pickles, 70 R. I. 13. Forsby v. Forsby, 155 Wash ... 33. compare Winans v. Winans, 124 N.Y. 140; Adams v. Adams, ... 57 Misc. (N. Y.) 150 ... The right of the ... ...
-
Gibson v. Gibson, 2121--I
...and support provision that had been proposed and awarded a divorce to defendant. On this appeal plaintiff, relying upon Forsby v. Forsby, 155 Wash. 33, 283 P. 457 (1929); Studley v. Studley, 141 Wash. 531, 252 P. 99 (1927), contends that she was entitled to a dismissal as a matter of right.......