# Jenkins v. Jenkins

> Oregon Supreme Court · September 14, 1926 · 119 Or. 292

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3837338

## Case

- **Full name:** Tisha Belle Jenkins v. Thomas E. Jenkins.
- **Court:** Oregon Supreme Court
- **Decided:** September 14, 1926
- **Citations:** 119 Or. 292; 247 P. 145; 1926 Ore. LEXIS 226
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Addendum by Brown
- **Judges:** Brown, Rand
- **Cited by:** 1 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3837338

## Opinion text

On Petition for Rehearing.
BROWN, J.
Tisha Belle Jenkins, by her attorney, has filed a motion for rehearing, for the purpose of modifying the divorce decree “by setting aside to the plaintiff-appellant” her dwelling-house.
The petitioner cites us to no authority and points to no pleading authorizing any such modification of the decree. In the pleadings on file no reference is made to any real property owned by her, and the divorce decree was awarded’ to Thomas E. Jenkins, the husband. Our statute provides:
“Whenever a marriage shall be declared void or dissolved, the party at whose prayer such decree shall be made shall in all cases be entitled to the undivided third part of his or her individual right in fee of the whole of the real estate owned by the other at the time of such decree, in addition to the further decree for maintenance provided for in section 513; and it shall be the duty of the court in all such cases to enter a decree in accordance with this provision.” Or. L., § 511.
*297
See, also,
Wetmore
v.
Wetmore,
5 Or. 469 ;
Huffman
v.
Huffmmv,
47 Or. 610 ( 86 Pac. 593 , 114 Am. St. Rep. 943 ).
The petition will be denied.
Rehearing Denied.
Rand, J., being absent, did not participate in this opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3837338. Public record. Not legal advice.