Shannon v. Shannon

Citation193 Or. 575,238 P.2d 744
PartiesSHANNON v. SHANNON.
Decision Date21 December 1951
CourtSupreme Court of Oregon

Austin Dunn, of Baker, argued the cause and filed a brief for appellant.

John D. Ryan and Anthony Pelay, Jr., of Portland, argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were Ryan & Pelay, of Portland.

Before BRAND, C. J., and ROSSMAN, LUSK, LATOURETTE, WARNER and TOOZE, JJ.

BRAND, Chief Justice.

This is a suit to establish and enforce in this state an interlocutory and final decree of divorce which was rendered in the Superior Court of the state of Washington for the county of Cowlitz. The decree was for the plaintiff and the defendant appeals. The original complaint was filed on 30 September 1948. Paragraph 2 of the amended complaint reads as follows: 'That on the 20th day of April, 1936, a decree was entered in the Superior Court of the State of Washington for the County of Cowlitz, making final an interlocutory decree of divorce entered in said Court on the 14th day of July, 1933. Under the terms of said decree the defendant herein, Elmer Shannon, was required to pay Plaintiff the sum of $20.00 per month on the 21st day of July, 1933, and a like sum on the 21st day of each and every month thereafter until the further order of said Superior Court, and in addition thereto attorneys' fees in the sum of $75.00. An exemplified copy of said decrees are hereto attached as Exhibit I and made a part of this complaint. * * *'

The allegations of this paragraph are admitted by the defendant. The complaint also alleges that the defendant has made no payments as ordered in the decree and that demand for payment has been made, that the defendant is owner of real and personal property in Baker County, Oregon, and will dispose of the same in order to avoid execution thereupon. The prayer is for the entry of the Washington decree and for its enforcement by the Oregon court. The trial court entered a decree, in part as follows: '* * * that the judgment and decree heretofore entered in the Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Cowlitz, be and the same hereby is entered of record of this Court as of the 30th day of September, 1948, and shall become binding upon the defendant as a judgment and decree of this Court from said date * * *.'

It was also held that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment against the defendant for 72 payments of $20 each, amounting to the sum of $1,440 plus interest in the sum of $542, both sums to bear interest from the date of the commencement of the suit. The transcript of testimony is prepared in violation of Rule 6 of this court in the following respect: The name of the witness is not written at the bottom of each page of the transcript of testimony. Failure to comply with this rule is the cause of considerable inconvenience to this court. Such failure is inexcusable. In the absence of any motion to strike the transcript, and in this instance, we will overlook the breach.

In the trial court two defenses were presented, the first based upon the statute of limitations, and the second based upon a plea of estoppel. It is asserted that the plaintiff 'informed defendant that she did not desire him to pay any of the sums of money specified in said decree directly to her, but rather that the defendant should pay any moneys so decreed directly to his said children * * *.' Defendant alleges that he relied upon the alleged statement and paid the children sums in excess of the amount specified in the decree. The trial court found against the defendant on both issues. Only one assignment of error is presented to this court on appeal. It reads as follows: 'The Court erred in overruling defendant's demurrer that the Amended Complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of suit in that among other things it affirmatively appears from such Amendment Complaint that the Washington judgment upon which plaintiff's cause of suit is based is lapsed and is of no further force, effect or validity, or in failing to find that the statute of limitations of both the states of Washington and Oregon had run against the same long prior to the commencement of this suit, and that both said interlocutory order and said final decree were at the time of the commencement of this suit and long prior thereto and are no longer of any force or effect.'

The only issue argued by the appellant relates to the statute of limitations. We shall therefore confine our consideration to that issue.

In a brief of about seven pages, the defendant contends that the statute of limitations 'began to run from the date of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Picker v. Vollenhover
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oregon
    • October 6, 1955
    ...ex rel. Weingart v. Kiessenbeck, 167 Or. 25, 32, 114 P.2d 147. See also, Cogswell v. Cogswell, 178 Or. 417, 167 P.2d 324; Shannon v. Shannon, 193 Or. 575, 238 P.2d 744, 239 P.2d 993; Restatement of the Law, Conflicts of Laws, § 434, and comment thereon, §§ 435, 437, 438. We quote further fr......
  • Irving Place Assocs. v. 628 Park Ave, LLC, 20130937.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Utah
    • November 13, 2015
    ...that "the statute of limitations begins to run when final judgment is entered in favor of the lien claimant"); Shannon v. Shannon, 193 Or. 575, 238 P.2d 744, 746 (1951) (observing that in the context of installments paid after a divorce, "the statute of limitations begins to run as to each ......
  • Newhouse v. Newhouse
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oregon
    • January 23, 1975
    ...when they became due in the same manner as child support payments become a judgment in Oregon. We quote from Shannon v. Shannon, 193 Or. 575, 580, 238 P.2d 744, 746, 239 P.2d 993 (1952), as '* * * The Oregon decisions have with equal clarity established the rule that each installment which ......
  • Roberts v. Roberts
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • December 1, 1966
    ...St. Germain v. St. Germain, 22 Wash.2d 744, 157 P.2d 981 (1945); Boudwin v. Boudwin, 159 Wash. 262, 292 P. 1017 (1930); Shannon v. Shannon, 193 Or. 575, 238 P.2d 744, 239 P.2d 993 In this case, all installments of support money which had accrued within the 6-year statute of limitations had ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT