¶1This is a suit for a divorce on the ground of desertion. The defendant was served by publication, but did not appear. The state appeared by the district attorney. Plaintiff and defendant were married in July, 1896, while on board a steamship oil the coast of Guatemala. A few months later they returned to Marshfield, where they lived together at intervals until March, 1900, when defendant left the state and has never returned. At the trial it was disclosed by the evidence of plaintiff's witnesses that she was then, and for many years prior thereto had been, a prostitute and the keeper of a house of ill-fame in Marshfield. Upon this state of the record, the court *294below dismissed tbe complaint, and properly so. “It is,” says Mr. Bishop, “a bar to any suit to dissolve a valid marriage, or to separate the parties from bed and board, that either before or after the complaint of delictum transpired the plaintiff himself did what, whether of the like offending or any other, was cause for a divorce of either sort.” 2 Bishop, Marriage, Div. & Sep. § 365. This is for the obvious reason that the law forbids redress to the plaintiff who is in equal default with the defendant, and helps those who obey it, and not those who violate it. The plaintiff’s conduct since defendant’s alleged desertion of her is a cause for divorce, and therefore a defense to this suit. It does not matter that the defendant made default. The state is deemed a party defendant in any suit for the dissolution of a marriage contract (B. & G. Comp. § 995), and when it appeared that plaintiff was a prostitute, and a violator of both the moral and statutory law, the court rightfully refused her relief. Affirmed.
43 Or. 293
Earle v. Earle
Decided July 6, 1903
Oregon Supreme Court · decided 1903-07-06
<p>Divorce —Misconduct of Plaintiff as a Defense — Pleading.</p> <p>Misconduct, of plaintiff amounting to a cause for divorce is a defense to a suit to dissolve tlie marriage relation, and it will be considered whenever it appears in evidence whether pleaded or not; this under the general rule that those who come into equity must come with clean hands.</p>
Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently January 1929
4 state decisions
Key passage — most relied on by later courts
““ ‘It is,’ says Mr. Bishop, ‘a bar to any suit to dissolve a valid marriage, or to separate the parties from bed and board, that either before or after the complaint of delictum transpired the plaintiff himself did what, whether of the like offending or any other, was cause for a divorce of either sort.’ 2 Bishop, Marriage, Div. and Sep., § 365.””
quoted by 2 later decisions, including Thomsen v. Thomsen, Carmichael v. Carmichael
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Affirmed · Decided 1903-07-06
View the full empirical analysis of this case →