Case Name: HANSON v. HANSON
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1914-05-26
Citations: 70 Or. 469
Docket Number: 
Parties: HANSON v. HANSON.
Judges: Mr. Chief Justice McBride, Mr. Justice Bean and Mr. Justice McNary concur.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 70
Pages: 469–470

Head Matter:
Argued April 10,
affirmed May 26, 1914.
HANSON v. HANSON.
(142 Pac. 348.)
Divorce—Defenses—Misconduct of Plaintiff.
In a suit for divorce, where defendant, files a counterclaim for divorce, and the evidence shows that both parties were in the habit of becoming intoxicated, that most or all of the altercations occurred when both were intoxicated, and that plaintiff’s reputation for chastity at her marriage was bad, which was known to defendant, a decree dismissing the complaint without cost to either party was proper.
[As to recriminatory defenses in suits for divorce, see notes in 15 Am. Dec. 211; 86 Am. St. Rep. 333. As to degree of proof required to establish cause for divorce, see note in Ann. Cas. 1913B, 1216.]
From Benton: James W. Hamilton, Judge.
This is a suit for divorce by Katie Hanson against Charles Hanson. The Circuit Court rendered a decree dismissing the complaint without costs to either party, and the plaintiff being dissatisfied, prosecutes this appeal.
Affirmed.
For appellant there was a brief over the names of Messrs. Weatherford & Weatherford and Mr. George W. Denman, with an oral argument by Mr. Mark V. Weatherford.
For respondent there was a brief over the name of Messrs. McFadden & Clarke, with an oral argument by Mr. Arthur Clarke.
For the State there was a brief over the name of Mr. E. E. Wilson, District Attorney.

Opinion:
Department 2.
Mr. Justice Eakin
delivered the opinion of the court.
This is a suit for divorce. The answer also contains a counterclaim for a divorce. The Circuit Court tried the case, and found that both plaintiff and defendant were in the habit of becoming intoxicated, and that most or all of the altercations related occurred when both were intoxicated; that plaintiff's reputation for chastity at the time of her marriage with defendant was bad, which fact was well known to defendant;'that plaintiff and defendant are drunken and immoral, and that a court of equity will not undertake to grant relief where both parties are guilty of a violation of the marital obligations—and rendered a decree dismissing the complaint, without cost to either party.
After a review of the evidence, we are satisfied that the decree is a proper one, which we affirm, neither party to recover costs in this court. Affirmed.
Mr. Chief Justice McBride, Mr. Justice Bean and Mr. Justice McNary concur.