Case Name: SMYTHE v. SMYTHE
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1915-06-08
Citations: 80 Or. 150
Docket Number: 
Parties: SMYTHE v. SMYTHE.
Judges: Mr. Chief Justice Moore and Mr. Justice Eakin were absent.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 80
Pages: 150–159

Head Matter:
Motion to dismiss appeal overruled June 8, 1915.
On the merits argued April 3,
reversed April 18, 1916.
SMYTHE v. SMYTHE.
[Appeal by State.]
(149 Pac. 516; 156 Pac. 785.)
Appeal and Error—Dismissal—Necessity of Undertaking.
1. It was not ground for the dismissal of an appeal by the district attorney in a suit for divorce that he filed no undertaking; Section 578, L. O. L., expressly excusing the state from filing an undertaking.
Appeal and Error—Appeal by District Attorney—Motion to Dismiss.
2. On appeal by the district attorney in a divorce suit, the record did not show that he had been served with summons prior to the trial of the suit, or that he had appeared in the suit as required by Section 1020, L. O. L., as amended in 1911 (Laws 1911, p. 126), and plaintiff moved to dismiss the áppeal on the ground that the appellant had no authority to prosecute it. Held that, in view of the fact that the district attorney had not been served as required, and that the question was not here presented, a motion to dismiss would be overruled with leave to renew it on argument of the ease.
Divorce—Proceedings—Appearance by State.
3. Where in a divorce action the district attorney neither demurred nor answered, he did not make the state a party to the action under Section 542, L. O. L., providing that to plead or demur shall constitute an appearance.
Divorce—Appearance—Answer—Effect of Filing.
4. Section 1020, L. O. L., as amended by Laws of 1911, page 126, declares that in any suit for dissolution of the marriage contract, the state is to be deemed a party defendant, and the plaintiff shall cause the summons to be served on the district attorney or his deputy, and it shall be the duty of such district attorney, so far as may be necessary to prevent fraud or eollusiou in such suit, to control the proceedings on the part of the defense, and in ease the defendant does not defend in good faith, to make a defense on behalf of the state, and that the court shall not hear or determine any suit for divorce until service has been had or unless the district attorney or his duly appointed deputy waive the provisions of the section by appearing in person at the trial of the cause, or by written acknowledgment of service. No process in a divorce proceeding was served on the district attorney or his deputy, but the attorney appeared at the hearing before the referee. Held that, as the district attorney did not answer, demur or give notice of waiver of appearance, he was not a party to the action; his appearance before the referee not being an appearance before the court hearing the divorce suit.
Divorce—Judgment—Right to Appeal.
5. Where the state was not made a party to and did not appear in an action for divorce, as required by Section 1020, L. O. L., as amended by Laws of 1911, page 126, the state may appeal from the judgment of divorce, which is void as to it, for, the decree cannot, as to it, be classed as one for want of an answer described in Section 549, declaring that any party to a decree or judgment other than a judgment or decree given by confession or for want of an answer may appeal.
Pleading—Complaint—Conclusions.
6. A complaint, averring that the conduct of the defendant husband had amounted to continuous and willful desertion within the meaning of the statutes of the State of Oregon governing divoree proceedings, and which further averred that the spouses had lived separately for a space of a year, does not show a desertion for a period of one year, which, by Section 507, L. O. L., is made ground for a divorce; the averments relating to the desertion being conclusions of law.
Divorce—Actions—Duty of District Attorney.
7. As the state is, by Section 1020, L. O. L., as amended by Laws of 1911, page 126, made a party to an action for divorce, the district-attorney should, where the defendant malees no defense, urge any defense, as the failure of the complaint to state a cause of action, that can be made.
From Marion: William: Galloway, Judge.
This is a suit by May Macombe Smythe against Ignatius Martin Smythe for divorce. From a decree for the plaintiff, the district attorney, in the name of the state, appeals. The plaintiff and respondent now move to dismiss the appeal. Motion overruled with leave to renew at hearing on the merits.
Motion Overruled.
Mr. Ivan G. Martin and Mr. Carey F. Martin, for the motion.
Mr. Ernest R. Ringo, District Attorney, contra.
In Banc. In Banc. Statement by Mr. Justice Burnett.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Eakin
delivered the opinion of the court.
1, 2. This is a motion to dismiss an appeal in a suit for a divorce, which was commenced by the filing of the complaint. The defendant, Ignatius Martin Smythe, was a nonresident of the state, and summons was issued to him and returned by the sheriff of Union County, North Dakota, showing personal service in said county; the return being indorsed thereon. The case was tried before the county clerk of Marion County, Oregon, as referee, and findings were made in favor of the plaintiff, and a decree of divorce granted. "Whereupon the district attorney of this county filed a notice of appeal from said decree. The-plaintiff served a motion to dismiss said appeal, in which six grounds therefor are assigned; some being duplicates. First, he contends that the notice does not describe the court to which the appeal is attempted to be taken. This point is disposed of in Smith v. Dwight, decided by this court against plaintiff's contention, May 18, 1915, ante, p. 1 (148 Pac. 477). It is further alleged that the appellant has filed no undertaking on appeal, but this is disposed of by reference to Section 578, L. O. L., which excuses the state from filing an undertaking. The further objection is made that appellant has no authority in law or legal right to prosecute this appeal. The assignments of error in the abstract are: (1) That the evidence fails to support the findings of fact and conclusions of law; (2) that it fails to support the decree of the court; and (3) that the complaint fails to state a cause of action. It appears from the record before us that no objections or exceptions were taken at the trial to any fact at issue therein. No question was raised as to the sufficiency of the evidence, nor as to that of the complaint. Section 1020, L. O. L., as amended in 1911 (Laws 1911, p. 126), provides:
"In any suit for the dissolution of the marriage contract, or to have the same declared void, the state is to be deemed a party defendant, and the party plaintiff in such suit shall cause the summons to be served upon the district attorney of the district within which the suit is commenced, or his duly appointed deputy, at least ten days before the term at which the defendant is required to appear and answer. It shall be the duty of such district attorney, so far as may be necessary to prevent fraud or collusion in such suit, to control the proceedings on the part of the defense, and in case the defendant does not appear therein, or defend against the same in good faith, to make a defense therein on behalf of the state. The court shall not hear or determine any suit for a divorce until service has been made upon the district attorney as herein-before provided, unless the district attorney or his duly appointed deputy waive the provisions of this section by appearing in person at the trial of said cause or by written acknowledgment of service waiving time for his appearance therein. All decrees of divorce heretofore granted in which the requirements of this section have not been complied with, are hereby validated and declared to be legal and binding upon the parties thereto, if otherwise regular."
This record shows upon its face that the district attorney was not served with summons prior to the trial thereof, and therefore the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction to hear and determine the same. It does not show that he appeared in the suit, but, if he did, he has made no objections or taken no exceptions to the rulings therein. In Parrish v. Parrish; 52 Or. 160 (96 Pac. 1066), the duties of the district attorney in such a case are referred to thus:
"But a divorce proceeding is sui generis, and necessarily triangular in its nature, consisting of the plaintiff, the defendant, and the state. Although not named in the pleadings in the first instance, the state, or the public, is interested in the result, making it the duty of the court to guard against collusion and fraud, and to deny the prayer for divorce, unless sufficient facts properly appear to justify it under the law."
Tn Eggerth v. Eggerth, 15 Or. 626 (16 Pac. 650), it is said:
After alleging the marriage of the parties, the continuous residence of the plaintiff in this state for more' than one year next prior to the commencement of the suit, that there are no children the issue of the marriage, that'no property is in any manner involved, and that at all times during their married life plaintiff treated the defendant as a dutiful wife should treat her husband, the complaint concludes with this allegation:
"That for more than one year last past the plaintiff and defendant have continuously lived separate and apart from each other, and during all of said time defendant has continuously neglected to properly support plaintiff, or provide her with a home suitable to one in her station of life, and the conduct of defendant for more than one year last past has amounted to continuous and willful desertion of the plaintiff within the meaning of the statutes of the State of Oregon governing divorce proceedings."
"When the district attorney intervenes in behalf of the state in a suit for a divorce,, and files a pleading therein, such pleading is to be governed by the same rules, so far as applicable, by which the defendant's pleading is governed."
In view of the fact that the district attorney was not served with the summons as required by the statute quoted, and that question was not presented here, the motion will be overruled, with leave to renew it on the argument of the case. Motion Overruled.