Case Name: CARRIE B. BILLION v. VERNON A. BILLION
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1927-05-24
Citations: 122 Or. 68
Docket Number: 
Parties: CARRIE B. BILLION v. VERNON A. BILLION.
Judges: Burnett, C. J., and McBride and Band, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 122
Pages: 68–73

Head Matter:
Motion to dismiss appeal denied October 12, 1926, argued March 25,
appeal dismissed May 24,
cross-appeal affirmed June 7, rehearing denied June 21, second petition for rehearing denied June 29, 1927.
CARRIE B. BILLION v. VERNON A. BILLION.
(256 Pac. 389; 256 Pac. 769.)
For appellant there was a brief and oral argument by Mr. Henry S. Westbrook.
For respondent and cross-appellant there was a brief and oral argument by Mr. J. H. Kelley.

Opinion:
COSHOW, J.
The plaintiff appeals from the decree denying her a divorce and dismissing her complaint. The defendant appeals from that part of the decree requiring him to pay $300 additional attorney's fee for the benefit of the plaintiff. The decree from which the appeal is taken was entered December 31, 1923. The plaintiff began another suit for divorce from the defendant January 21, 1924. February 28, 1924, she gave notice of her appeal from the decree rendered December 21, 1923. On May 24, 1924, defendant filed his motion to dismiss this appeal because plaintiff was prosecuting the second suit for divorce. On March 26, 1926, a decree was entered in the second suit granting to plaintiff a divorce from the defendant. Therefore on August 2, 1926, defendant renewed his motion to dismiss the appeal now under consideration. That motion was denied with permission to present it at the argument on the merits. The case was argued on the merits in this court on March 25, 1927. Plaintiff having been granted a divorce subsequent to this appeal is not entitled to be heard on the appeal. This appeal has become a moot question. The object sought by the appeal is a divorce. That object has been attained. The controversy between plaintiff and defendant is at an end: State ex rel. v. Webster, 58 Or. 376 (114 Pac. 932); Addison v. Addison, 117 Or. 80, 82 (242 Pac. 832); Moores v. Moores, 36 Or. 261, 265 (59 Pac. 327); Ehrman v, Astoria R. R. Co., 26 Or. 377 (38 Pac. 306), Samuel v. Samuel, 59 Kan. 335 (52 Pac. 889).
The motion to dismiss is allowed and plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. Appeal Dismissed.
Burnett, C. J., and McBride and Band, JJ., concur.