Case Title: Pick v. Pick

Citation: 219 Or. 247, 345 P.2d 805

Docket Number: 

State: oregon

Court: Oregon Supreme Court

Date: 1959-11-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
Affirmed November 4, 1959.
Petition for rehearing denied December 2, 1959.
William F. Frye, Eugene, argued the cause for the appellants. With him on the brief were Milligan & Brown, Eugene.
*248 James C. Goode, Eugene, argued the cause for the respondent. With him on the brief were Harris, Butler, Husk & Gleaves, Eugene.
Before ROSSMAN, J., Presiding, and PERRY, O'CONNELL and REDDING, Justices.
AFFIRMED.
ROSSMAN, J.
This is an appeal by Stephen Pick, Alan Pick and Paula Pick, minors, through their guardian ad litem from a judgment which the circuit court entered in favor of the defendant after it had sustained a demurrer to the complaint. The demurrer charged that (1) the complaint did not state a cause of action and (2) "it appears upon the face of the complaint that there are several alleged causes of action of the plaintiffs individually that have been improperly united in one complaint."
The complaint alleges that while the plaintiffs were living with their father, Ludwig Pick, and were enjoying his aid, society, protection and support the defendant, an unmarried woman, intentionally and wrongfully enticed the father to desert the plaintiffs, his home and his wife (their mother). It charges that the defendant's intent was "to injure the plaintiffs and to deprive them of their father's protection, society, aid and support." It goes on to say:
latter resorted to blandishments and the making of valuable gifts. Other averments of the complaint state that the defendant accomplished her purpose thereby causing the father to desert his wife, his *249 home and the plaintiffs with the result that "the affections which said Ludwig Pick held for his children became estranged and alienated, and thereby totally destroyed for all time the relationship up to then existing between plaintiffs and their father." Continuing, it states that as a result of the defendant's wrongful conduct the father filed a suit for divorce against his wife and five days after entry of the decree married the defendant. The decree of divorce, so the complaint alleges, directed the father to contribute $205 monthly for the support of the plaintiffs but he has not met the demand. The complaint also alleges, "defendant has alienated and caused to become estranged the affections of Ludwig Pick toward plaintiffs to the extent that said Ludwig Pick has neglected and refused to see or speak to his children, the plaintiffs." The prayer seeks $90,000 general and $30,000 punitive damages. The three plaintiffs unite in that single complaint and a single purported cause of action. Their ages are 16, 12 and 10 years.
We will first determine the merits, if any, of the second basis for the demurrer which is, as above stated:
ORS 13.160 provides:
1, 2. We believe that the right of each child in a family to the aid, society and protection of its father is *250 complete in itself and that its validity is not dependent upon the rights of the other children. Assuming that an action of the kind at bar can be maintained by a child against the wrongdoer and that the child recovers a judgment, the latter would belong to the child; his brothers or sisters would have no interest in it.
In 1 CJS Actions § 76 at page 1217, it is said:
The following is taken from 39 Am Jur Parties § 32 at page 897:
The same rule is expressed as follows in 67 CJS Parties § 21 page 936:
*251 Pitts et al v. Crane, 114 Or 593, 236 P 475, stated that rule succinctly in the following way:
Iowa has a rule of civil procedure similar to ORS 13.160, supra. In Miller v. Hawkeye Gold Dredging Co., 156 Iowa 557, 137 NW 507, the court stated:
3. We do not think that the three children can sue by way of a single cause of action.
ORS 16.260 states:
State v. Montag Co., 132 Or 587, 286 P 995, ruled that when there is an improper joinder of causes the remedy is by demurrer unless the defect does not appear as in this case on the face of the complaint.
*252 It is our belief that the second ground, as stated in the demurrer, was well taken. It therefore follows that the demurrer was properly sustained. Under that situation there is no occasion to consider the first ground of the demurrer. We make no intimations concerning it.
Affirmed.