169 P. 128 | Or. | 1917
Lead Opinion
Opinion by
In the case of Van Zandt v. Parson, 81 Or. 453 (159 Pac. 1153), this court speaking by Mr. Chief Justice Moore, defined an adverse party as,
“A plaintiff or defendant in an action or suit whose interest in regard to the judgment or decree appealed from, is in conflict with a reversal or modification of the final determination sought to be reviewed.”
The state never intervenes to procure a divorce, but only to prevent a fraudulent or collusive decree from being granted. The plaintiff having obtained a divorce, the state has no interest to be adversely affected by a reversal of the decree which would leave the marriage relation intact. See, also, D’Arcy v. Sanford, 81
In Lee v. Lee, 19 Wash. 355 (53 Pac. 349), it was held under statutes similar to our own, that the state was not such a party to a divorce proceeding as to entitle it to appeal from an adverse decision. It is unnecessary to go to that extent in this case, and a case might well be imagined wherein the proceedings were so collusive and fraudulent as to justify a district attorney not only in intervening by answer or otherwise in the suit, but in appealing on behalf of the state should a divorce be granted; but where the state has not so intervened and the only effect of a reversal of the decree would be to prevent a divorce, we fail to see any reason why the notice of appeal should be served upon the district attorney.
The motion to dismiss is overruled.
Motion Denied.
Affirmed May 21, 1918.
Opinion on the Merits
On the Merits.
In Banc.
This is a suit for divorce. There was a decree for plaintiff and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
For appellant there was a brief over the name of Messrs. McCulloch & Wood, with an oral argument by Mr. Wells W. Wood.
For respondent there was a brief over the names of Mr. P. J. Gallagher and Mr. William H. Brooke, with an oral argument by Mr. Gallagher.