Case Name: TAYLOR v. TAYLOR
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1914-04-21
Citations: 70 Or. 510
Docket Number: 
Parties: TAYLOR v. TAYLOR
Judges: Mr. Justice Bean, Mr. Justice Eakin and Mr. Justice McNary concur.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 70
Pages: 510–529

Head Matter:
On motion for suit money, etc., pending appeal, submitted September 7, overruled September 23, 1913.
Submitted on briefs without argument, and modified April 21, 1914,
rehearing denied June 2,1914.
TAYLOR v. TAYLOR
(134 Pac. 1183; 140 Pac. 999.)
Marriage—Suits for Annulment—Alimony and Allowances.
1. The Supreme Court has no original jurisdiction to grant suit money or an allowance for maintenance pending an appeal in a suit to avoid a marriage, since Article VII, Section 2 of the Constitution, as amended November 8, 1910 (see Laws 1911, p. 7), providing that the courts, jurisdiction, and judicial system of the state, except so far as expressly changed thereby, shall remain as at present constituted until otherwise provided by law, but that the Supreme Court in its own discretion may take original jurisdiction in mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus proceedings, has not changed the former rule in this regard; and hence, where no appeal was taken from the circuit court’s refusal to grant such an allowance, it could not be granted by the Supreme Court.
Marriage—Suits for Annulment—Alimony and Allowances.
2. Under Section dl2, L. O. L., providing that after the commencement of a suit to dissolve the marriage contract or to have it declared void, “and before a decree therein,” the court or judge may provide by order for the payment by the husband of such amount as may be necessary to enable the wife to proseeute or defend the suit, and for the care, custody, and maintenance of minor children during the pendency of the suit, the Circuit Court, after its final decree in such a suit, could not make an order granting an allowance of suit money and maintenance pending an appeal.
ON THE MERITS.
Marriage—Annulment—Alimony.
3. The allowance to the wife of money for her living expenses and for a surgical operation pending a suit to declare the marriage void is not authorized in Section 512, L. O. L., authorizing the court, pending suit, to order that the husband pay, or secure to be paid, to the elerk of court, such an amount as may be necessary to enable the wife to proseeute or defend the suit, Section 513, providing for alimony after decree declaring void or dissolving the marriage contract, Section 511, providing that when a marriage shall be declared void or dissolved the court shall grant to the person in whose favor the decree is rendered an undivided one third of the real property of the other, nor Sections 7040 and 7041, authorizing suit and decree to compel the husband to contribute to the support of the wife and their minor children.
[As to the necessity of the marriage relation to support allowance of alimony, see notes in 68 Am. St. Rep. 375; 71 Am. St. Rep. 88; Ann. Cas. 1913A, 664.]
Marriage—Annulment—Alimony.
4. The right to alimony is solely statutory, and the court has no authority to order the payment of a sum for the support of the wife pending suit to- have a marriage declared void, in the absence of statutory provision therefor.
Dismissal and Nonsuit—-Voluntary Dismissal—Nature and Extent of Right.
5. The right to dismiss an action or suit is not an absolute one that plaintiff can exercise without leave of court, and the court can compel the plaintiff to pay the costs of an action or suit before dismissing it.
Marriage—Annulment—Attorneys’ Fees.
6. When, in a suit to have a marriage declared void, the wife has incurred liabilities for attorneys’ fees and other expenses of the suit, the court may compel the husband to advance the money to pay them, and refuse him a nonsuit till he has paid them, though the order be made after the services have been rendered.
[As to “expenses” as including attorneys’ fees, see note in Ann. Cas. 1914C, 1300.]
Marriage—Annulment—Attorneys’ Fees.
7. In a suit to have a marriage declared void, where defendant, living 1,200 miles from the place of suit, was served by publication aná did not hear of the suit till a decree had been entered declaring the marriage void, after which she employed counsel to have the decree set aside, which was done after a hard contest, including an appeal for which plaintiff advanced the fees for the attendance of defendant’s counsel, an allowance thereafter, at the same hearing at which the court dismissed the suit on motion of the plaintiff, of $2,500 attorneys’ fees, the plaintiff being worth a million dollars, is not an abuse of the court’s discretion.
[As.to power of court to allow attorneys’ fees in matrimonial action after reconciliation of parties, see note in Ann. Cas. 1913A, 798.]
Appeal and Error—Review—Discretion of Trial Court.
8. The Supreme Court can review the action of trial courts in making allowances of attorneys’ fees in suits to have marriages declared void only for abuse of discretion.
From Clackamas: James A. Eakin, Judge.
Department 2. Statement by Mr. Chief Justice McBride.
The plaintiff, Charles D.. Taylor, brought a suit to declare his marriage with defendant, Minnie N. Taylor void. On answer being filed by defendant, plaintiff moved to dismiss, which motion was granted; the court awarded defendant $2,500 suit money and $8,665 for maintenance while the suit was pending. From the order granting suit money and maintenance, plaintiff appealed. Upon notice of appeal being filed, and before the justification of the surety on the appeal bond, defendant applied to the Circuit Court for suit money and maintenance pending the appeal, which was denied; the Circuit Court holding that it had no jurisdiction to make such order after making its final order of dismissal. The defendant filed in this court a supplementary transcript showing the proceedings above recited, and moves this court for an allowance for suit money and maintenance!
Motion Overruled.
Messrs. Flegel, Reynolds & Flegel, for the motion.
Mr. John F. Logan and Mr. Isham N. Smith, contra.

Opinion:
Opinion by
Mr. Chief Justice McBride.
This court has no original jurisdiction to grant suit money or maintenance pending the, hearing of a case upon appeal. This-is settled by the case of O'Brien v. O'Brien, 36 Or. 92 (57 Pac. 374, 58 Pac. 892). No appeal was taken by defendant from the refusal of the court to grant further suit money and maintenance, and the question, therefore, is one in which we are either required to exercise original jurisdiction or it is not here at all. While Article VII, Section 2 of the Constitution, as amended November 8, 1910 (see Laws 1911, p. 7), has given this court.original jurisdiction in mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus proceedings, the same section provides that in all other respects its jurisdiction shall remain unchanged until otherwise provided by law. This leaves the law in the same condition as it was when O'Brien v. O'Brien, supra, was decided, and that case is controlling.
Section 512, L. O. L., provides, in substance, that the Circuit Court may, at any time after a suit for divorce or to declare a marriage void is instituted, and before a decree therein, make an order for suit money or maintenance. The Circuit Court was without jurisdiction to make such order after its final decree had been entered. This may be a harsh rule in some instances, but we are without authority to mitigate its hardship until the statute shall have been amended.
The motion is overruled.
Mr. Justice Bean, Mr. Justice Eakin and Mr. Justice McNary concur.