Case ID: or_80/html/0511-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Argued May 2,
    reversed May 23, 1916.
    WATERMAN v. WATERMAN.
    (157 Pac. 791.)
    Divorce—Grounds—Sufficiency.
    1. Where the plaintiff husband’s conduct toward his wife is insufficient to justify her separation from him, and her conduct is insufficient to justify his separation from and refusal to live with her, but merely showed that by childish and inconsiderate bickering they had become mutually estranged and preferred not to live together, a decree of divorce will not be granted.
    [As to cruelty as ground for divorce, see notes in 51 Am. Bep. 736; 65 Am. St. Bep. 69.]
    From Wasco: William L. Bradshaw, Judge.
    This is a suit by Ira L. Waterman against Rosa M.. Waterman to annul a marriage contract. From a decree in favor of plaintiff, the defendant appeals.
    Reversed. Suit Dismissed.
    For appellant there was a brief over the names of Messrs. Bennett é Galloway, with an oral argument by Mr. Alfred 8. Bennett.
    
    For respondent there was a brief with oral arguments by Mr. Robert R. Butler and Mr. Fred W. Wilson.
    
    In Banc.
   Opinion

Per Curiam.

1. This is a suit for divorce on the alleged ground of cruel and inhuman treatment and personal indignities rendering life burdensome. The answer denies the material allegations of the complaint, and the defendant by way of cross-complaint alleges that plaintiff has been guilty of cruel and inhuman treatment, and prays that she be given a divorce from plaintiff. After a careful examination of the voluminous testimony in this case, we have arrived at the conclusion that plaintiff has failed to establish the charges made in the complaint, and that, while the conduct of the defendant may not have been in all things perfect, it has not been such as to justify plaintiff in separating from his wife and refusing to live with her. On the other hand, we do not find that plaintiff’s conduct toward defendant has been such as to justify defendant in separating from him. It seems to be a case where two young people, by childish and inconsiderate bickering, have become mutually estranged and prefer not to live together. In cases of this kind it would be worse than useless to spread upon the reports of this court a summary of the testimony. Our conclusion from it is that neither party has shown sufficient cause for divorce, and that both parties are more or less to blame for the unfortunate differences between them.

The decree of the Circuit Court will be reversed and the cause dismissed. Reversed and Dismissed.

Mr, Justice Eakin absent.