Case Name: MILLER v. MILLER
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1913-04-08
Citations: 65 Or. 551
Docket Number: 
Parties: MILLER v. MILLER.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 65
Pages: 551–557

Head Matter:
Submitted on briefs without argument March 25,
decided April 8, 1913.
Former opinion modified on rehearing July 8, 1913.
MILLER v. MILLER.
(131 Pac. 308; 133 Pac. 86.)
Divorce — Alimony—Appeal — Transcript—Contents.
1. On appeal from an order denying a motion to modify a divorce decree so as to relieve the husband from the payment of alimony, the original complaint, answer, and reply were proper parts of the transcript.
Divorce — Hearing—Decree.
2. The court has no jurisdiction to grant a divorce on the pleadings without hearing evidence, and a decree so granted is absolutely void.
Divorce — Disposition of Property — Validity of Decree.
3. Conceding that a decree in a divorce proceeding granting alimony to a party in fault is absolutely void, a decree granting a divorce to the husband for the wife’s fault, transferring the legal title to certain real estate from the wife to the husband, and requiring the husband to pay the wife $50' a month, although possibly irregular, was not void.
Divorce — Appeal—Presumptions in Support of Judgment.
4. Where a decree granting a divorce to the husband transferred the legal title to land from the wife to the husband, and required the husband to pay the wife $50 a month, it would be assumed, where the testimony was not in the record on appeal, that the evidence showed such equities in the realty in favor of the wife as justified the court in decreeing her the sum of $50 a month out of such property.
From Multnomah: Henry E. McGinn, Judge.
Statement by Mr. Chief Justice McBride.
Ernest brought suit against Daisy, alleging various acts of cruel and inhuman treatment, including such matters as threatening to kill him, throwing dishes and glassware at him, striking him with dishes and other articles of household furniture, kicking him on delicate parts of his anatomy, and thereby permanently injuring him, and other desecrations of his manly person, whereby he was permanently injured and his life rendered miserable and unbearable.
Daisy answered, denying the soft impeachments of plaintiff, and alleging that plaintiff had been accustomed to beat, kick, curse, and abuse defendant; that he had spit tobacco juice on her clothing, cursed and abused her; that he had associated with dissolute women, and had thereby contracted a loathsome disease, had become infected with lice and other creeping insects of the louse family, had called defendant all kinds of vile names, and had made a brute of himself generally. Plaintiff replied, denying all the allegations of the answer.
The circuit judge, taking the matter in his own hands, and without hearing any testimony, made a decree upon the complaint, answer and reply, granting plaintiff a divorce and decreeing the property held in the name of defendant to belong to plaintiff, granting plaintiff the custody of the two children of the marriage, and giving defendant alimony at the rate of $50 per month. After paying alimony for a few months, plaintiff refused to pay longer, and applied for a modification of the decree on the ground that Section 513, L. O. L., provides only for the recovery of alimony off of the party in fault, and that, the decree being in his favor, he is not in fault, and that the part of the decree granting alimony is void.
Remanded.
Submitted on briefs without arguments under the proviso of Rule 18 of the Supreme Court: 56 Or. 622 (117 Pac. xi).
For appellant there was a brief over the names of Messrs. Flegel & Reynolds.
For respondent there was a brief over the name of Mr. John C. Shillock.

Opinion:
Opinion by
Mr. Chief Justice McBride.
There is some question raised as to the relevancy of the original complaint, answer and reply as a part of the transcript. They are necessary and proper to the determination of this case.
The Circuit Court has no jurisdiction to grant a divorce without hearing testimony, and the whole decree is absolutely void.
The cause will be remanded to the Circuit Court with instructions to vacate the original decree, to hear the testimony, and to make a decree in accordance therewith. Neither party will recover costs in this court. Remanded.