Rowe v. Rowe

• Decision Date: 15 June 1915
• Citation: 76 Or. 491,149 P. 533
• Parties: ROWE v. ROWE, et al.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

149 P. 533

76 Or. 491

ROWE v. ROWE, et al.

Supreme Court of Oregon

June 15, 1915

Action by Nathan Rowe against Agnes Jessie Rowe and James C. Parker as sheriff of Lane County, Oregon. Judgment for plaintiff and defendant Agnes Jessie Rowe appeals. Affirmed.

In the year 1900, the defendant in the present suit obtained a decree of divorce from this plaintiff which awarded her the custody of the minor child of the parties, and contained among other matters, the following:

"That all of the allegations of the first count and cause of action set up by plaintiff in her said first amended complaint herein are true and have been proven to the satisfaction of the court by said evidence. And, as conclusions of law, that plaintiff is entitled to a decree of this court forever dissolving the bonds of matrimony heretofore existing and yet undissolved between the plaintiff and the said defendant, and awarding to her the care, custody, and control of the minor child, issue of their marriage, Ethel Pearl Rowe, and the sum of $10 per month to be paid to her, said plaintiff, by defendant monthly, beginning with the month of October, 1900. Wherefore, be it, and it is hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the bonds of matrimony existing between plaintiff Agnes Jessie Rowe and defendant Nathan Andrew Rowe be and the same are hereby forever dissolved, and that the said parties be and each of them are hereby forever freed from all the obligations thereof. That all the property in the possession, under the control or in the name of plaintiff, is and shall be and remain her separate property and estate. And it is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that the care, custody, and control of said minor child, Ethel Pearl Rowe, be and it is hereby awarded and granted to plaintiff. And it is also further ordered and decreed and adjudged that defendant pay unto plaintiff the sum of $20 per month each and every month hereafter during the minority of said child and until and unless otherwise ordered by the court, for the care, support, and maintenance of the said Ethel Pearl Rowe, and that plaintiff have judgment against defendant for said monthly sum to be paid as aforesaid. Let judgment be entered accordingly."

The plaintiff here (defendant in the divorce proceeding) removed to Oregon, and in 1905 his former wife brought a suit in the circuit court of Lane county to enforce the California decree. Defendant (plaintiff here) appeared and demurred to the complaint in that suit, but failed to plead further. Whereupon the court entered a decree requiring him to pay to the plaintiff in that proceeding the sum of $749.33 as alimony and accrued interest thereon, and the further sum of $1,499.66 for the maintenance of the minor child; being the aggregate of the sums prescribed by the California decree and accrued interest thereon. It further decreed that he should continue in the future to pay monthly the sums decreed by the California court as alimony and maintenance until the superior court, which had granted the original decree, should vacate or modify the same.

Plaintiff brought this suit to set aside the decree of the circuit court of Lane county upon four grounds: (1) That the California decree was not a final decree and no decision of the superior court of California had been made determining the amount due, and that the Oregon court had no jurisdiction of the subject-matter under the suit started by defendant in 1905, in which the decree sought to be enjoined was rendered (2) that the decree for alimony in the California decree was obtained by fraud, for the reason that no alimony was asked for in the complaint upon which said decree was rendered; (3) that the California court had no jurisdiction to render the decree for alimony on the ground that the amended complaint upon which the same was based did not ask for alimony; (4) that after the rendition of the decree in this state the plaintiff, upon his own application, was duly adjudged a bankrupt in the United States District Court of the District of Oregon, and had duly received his discharge in bankruptcy. In her answer defendant admits the rendition of the decree in California, the rendition of the decree in Oregon, and denies all other allegations set forth in the complaint as to each of the causes of suit except the fourth. She further alleges the various amounts recovered in the Oregon decree, and admits the issuance of an execution to collect the same. The circuit court in the findings of fact and conclusions of law found that the decree of California...