Case Name: PARMAN v. PARMAN
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1919-05-20
Citations: 94 Or. 307
Docket Number: 
Parties: PARMAN v. PARMAN.
Judges: Burnett, J., concurs in the result.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 94
Pages: 307–317

Head Matter:
Motion to dismiss appeal filed May 3,
overruled May 20,
argued on the merits October 29, affirmed December 16, 1919.
PARMAN v. PARMAN.
(180 Pac. 906; 185 Pac. 922.)
Divorce — Appeal—Notice of Appeal — Service upon District Attorney.
1. In divoree suit, where district attorney was not served with summons, but personally appeared, and his appearance was noted in the record at the trial, an appeal could be taken from the decree rendered without serving him with notice of appeal, since his appearance, though it conferred jurisdiction, did not, in absence of some motion or other pleading filed by him, confer upon state any right to be heard further in the case.
ON THE MERIT'S.
Divorce — Untidiness of Wife not Cruelty.
2. Where defendant wife bore six children during the 10 years of her married life and did. most of the cooking and housework for her husband and the hired men on his large ranch, her untidiness was not ground for divoree, as cruel and inhuman treatment.
[As to habits or conduct of spouse as cruelty warranting divoree, see note in Ann. Cas. 1918B, 480.]
Divorce — Charge of Infidelity Cruelty.
3. Defendant’s wife’s intimation to plaintiff husband that he had be An guilty of improper conduct with another woman held not cruel and inhuman conduct warranting divorce, she having had reasonable grounds for suspicion.
Evidence — Judicial Notice Taken of Nervous Condition Attending Pregnancy.
4. It is a well-known fact that in a condition of advanced pregnancy women are more sensitive and more suspicious than they are at other times.
Divorce — Evidence Insufficient to Show Cruel and Inhuman Treatment by Wife.
5. Husband held not entitled to divorce for cruel and inhuman treatment.
From Wheeler: Fred W. Wilson, Judge.
In Banc.
This is a suit for divorce. The district attorney was not served with summons, but personally appeared, and his appearance was noted in the record at the trial. There was a decree dismissing the suit, and plaintiff appeals. The district attorney was not served with notice of the appeal, and defendant moves to dismiss the appeal for that reason.
Overruled.
Messrs. Kimball & Bingo, for the motion.
Messrs. Angelí & Fisher, contra.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
In De Foe v. De Foe, 88 Or. 549 (169 Pac. 128, 172 Pac. 980), this court, speaking of the appearance of a district attorney without service of summons, or filing any pleading, said:
"While such appearance of the district attorney confers jurisdiction, it does not in the absence of some motion or other pleading filed by him, confer upon the state any right of appeal, or any right to be heard further in the case," etc.
We still adhere to this statement of the law, and the motion to dismiss will be overruled.
Overruled.