Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1911-08-03
Jones '. ZONES. Claekamas County,

gued and submitted July 13, 1911.
Wm. LaForce, for appellant. c. d.
and D. c. Latourette, on brief, for
respondent. Eakin, c. j. Reversed
and remanded.
Eakin, c. J. On July 10, 1907,
plaintiff commenced a suit in Clack-
amas county for a divorce from de-
fendant both persons, at that time,
being residents of Multnomah coun-
ty. The complaint does not state in
what county either person resided.
In the prayer Of the complaint plain
tiff asks for an order that defendant
pay to her $3.50 alimony (probably
suit money was intended) and $40
month for the benefit s'of plaintif
pending the suit. Pursuant to the
prayer, on July 13, 1907, the court
made an order, requiring defendant
to pay into court $3.50 alimony and
500 per month as maintenance. This
order was served on defendant in
Multnomah county on July II, 1907.
The summons was served in the
same county on July 12, but the re-
turn was not filed until September
10. On August G, defendant, by his
attorney, filed in the case a motion
for a change of venue to Multnomah
county, reciting In the motion and
affidavit in support thereof, that
plaintiff and defendant were resi-
dents of Nultnomah county. The
filing Of this motion, although recit-
ing that defendant appeared special
ly for the purposes of the motion and
for no other purpose, was a general
appearance. The motion asks for an
order that could only be made upon
the assumption that the court had
| jurisdiction OF the suit: Belknap V.
Charlton, 25 Or. Al; Multnomah Lum-
ber Co. v. Western Basket Co., "a
| Or %, g. Therefore, whether the
court of Clackamas county obtained
| jurisdiction or not Of the suit or the
defendant, by the fling of the COM
plant and service of summons in
Multnomah county, 1t did acquire
Jurisdiction by the general appear
ance of defendant on August 6, 1907.
On September 12, 1907, defendant
filed motion, asking to have the Or
der Of July 13, 1907, for the payment
Of alimony, vacated and set aside, on
the ground that plaintiff and defen-
dant have settled their differences.
This was also a general appearance
by defendant. No disposition was
made of this motion. On February
IS, 1908, defendant filed motion to
dismiss the suit, for the reason that
plaintiff had condoned the cause for
divorce on September 1, 1907, and
that thereafter plaintiff had resumed
her marital relations with defendant.
This motion was based upon two af-
fldavits, one by defendant and the
other by plaintiff, in which it is stat
ed that plaintiff had voluntarily re-
turned to the home of defendant and
had condoned his past offense and
had resumed marital relations witt
him. and plaintiff asks to have the
suit dismissed. This was also a gen.
mains undisposed Of On June 20
1909, on motion of plaintiffs attor.
ney, judgment OF default was ren.
dered against defendant, and there,
after, on July l a decree was rem
dered dissolving the marriage rela.
tion existing between plaintiff anC
defendant, and a judgment against
defendant for $3.50 alimony, and $2(
per month, as maintenance, and 50.
for costs.
Again, on August II, 1909, defen
dant filed motion in the case, ask
ing to have the decree vacated fol
the reason that the court had no jur
isdiction to render the same; anC
that on September /, 1907, plaintiff
cOndoned the acts of defendant, Sc
forth as the cause Of suit, long be
fore the date Of the decree, which
motion was denied on October II
1909.
It appears that plaintiff and defen
dant had settled their differences
which were the subject of this suit
prior to September l, 1907, and wer,
living and cohabitlng together there
after There can be no question bu
that the persons, themselves, to
suit may settle the subject of the lit
tgation, and they having done so il
tnis cCUe and that fact having beef
brought to the knowledge of tn,
court, II could not proceed furthe
with the suit. The law regards tn
marriage relations with peculiar ia
vor, The public has an interest in
divorce suit and the courts shoul,
administer their jurisdiction of tina
subject in view of the public good a
. we'll as private rights Adams '
Adams, ~ Or, l76 Even where tn
defendant expressly or impliedly ad
I nuts the misconduct or makes de
mult, II is not sufficient to authoriz
I n decree of divorce without prope
! proof Of the facts: IA Cyc. 7O2.
\ In Hill v Hin, "a Or. 4l6. Mr. Jus
I uce Bean says; "The accusation O
! adultery, so far as this testimon
I aiscloses, II made at ALL may hav
! been made at any time during tn
! married life OF the parties, and hav
{ been fully condoned by subseouen
cohahitation, and II this be so tn
planun Is not entitled to decree O
ulVorce' although the defendant ha
! not pleaded the conformation"
In Wheeler v Wheeler. is Or. 26s
Mr. Justice Lord SAYS: "It Is on
\ duty TO remember that the contrac
OF marriage, unlike other contracts
! the state is specially interested h
preserving unbroken, and that tn
contracting parties cannot annul n
nor the court. except for the cause
I specified in the statute, and only the,
when satisfactory evidence that sncl
\ cause or causes exist"
II the facts alleged for grounds q
divorce are condoned after the com
I mencement OF the suit. or befor
! and revived after, the suit must TAI,
! A repetition Of the same or simiIa
\ acts after condonatiop and o,,or ~