Case Name: IRENE DAVIS v. B. ERNEST DAVIS
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1928-02-07
Citations: 123 Or. 667
Docket Number: 
Parties: IRENE DAVIS v. B. ERNEST DAVIS.
Judges: Rand, C. J., and McBbide and Rossman, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 123
Pages: 667–670

Head Matter:
Argued January 24,
modified February 7, 1928.
IRENE DAVIS v. B. ERNEST DAVIS.
(263 Pac. 914.)
For appellant there was a brief and oral argument by Mr. J ohm A. Beckwith.
For respondent there was a brief and oral argument by Mr. Howard P. Arnest.

Opinion:
COSHOW, J.
Plaintiff, not having appealed, is conclusively presumed to be satisfied with the decree. In disposing of the case we cannot render a decree any more favorable to plaintiff than the decree appealed from by the defendant: Crumbley v. Crumbley, 94 Or. 617 (186 Pac. 423).
It has been determined so often that the Circuit Court is without power to award to the innocent party in a divorce case the specific property of the defendant, either real or personal, that it should be considered the settled law of the state. It is unnecessary to discuss the principle involved and we content ourselves with citing the authorities: Rees v. Rees, 7 Or. 48; Huffman v. Huffman, 47 Or. 610, 617 (86 Pac. 593, 114 Am. St. Rep. 943); Taylor v. Taylor, 54 Or. 560, 570 (103 Pac. 524).
The evidence not having been brought here, we can consider only the question of law presented by the pleadings, expressed in the decree and incorporated in the notice of appeal. The pleadings clearly show that the real property, attempted to be transferred from defendant to plaintiff by the decree, was never the property of the plaintiff. Consequently the rule announced by this court in Taylor v. Taylor, above, does not apply.
The other portion of the decree appealed from by defendant, to wit, the judgment for the sum of $3,275.48, cannot be disturbed because the complaint alleges that prior to the marriage of the parties plaintiff loaned to defendant the sum of $3,000 which has never been repaid. We do not have the evidence so that we can inquire into the correctness of the Circuit Court's findings upon which that part of the decree is based: Crumbley v. Crumbley, above.
Since the briefs were prepared in the instant case this court has announced that the trial court cannot award to the innocent party more than an undivided half of the real property held by the husband and wife as tenants by the entirety: Schafer v. Schafer, 122 Or. 620 (260 Pac. 206).
The decree1 appealed from will be affirmed in all respects except as to the transfer to plaintiff of the above-described real property and reversed so far as that part of the decree is concerned. A decree will be entered here in accordance with this opinion; that is, following the decree as entered in the court below, except as to the award of said real property which will be awarded to the plaintiff and defendant in equal parts as tenants in common. Neither party will recover costs in this court. Modified.
Rand, C. J., and McBbide and Rossman, JJ., concur.