BABBETC V. FAILINa. 47l �1)6 a Bpecîal reason for requiring it the court oan so act ; but it would put them to a disadvantage to establish it as a rule that the non-resident party in our federal courts must, when a bond is necessary, ûnd sureties in the place where the court is beld. �Tbe bond in tbis case will be approved, and the reheariog xefu&ed. ���Babbett V, Failiko and another. (Oirevit Court, B. Oregon. June 27, 188a) �1 DivoHOE— FoEEiGN Decebb— Obkoon Code of Civil Pbocbdxjbb, �S 495 Section 495 ol the Oregon Codeof Civil Procedure provides that �" whenever a marriage ghall be declarcd void, or dissolved, the party at whase prayer such decree shall be made shall, in ail cases, be enti- tled to the undivided one-third part In his or her individual right, in fee, of the whole of the real estate owned by the other at the time ol guch decree, ••*••• and it shall be the duty of the court, in ail such cases, to enter a decree in aocordance with this provision." Edd, that a decree of divorce obtained in anotlier state did not corne within the purvicw of this section, ao as to afCect the title to landa vithin the state of Oregon. �In Equity. Demurrer to Bill. �Sidney Dell and W. Scott Bebee, for plaîntîfF, �William Strong, for defendants. �Deadt, D. J. This suit is brought to establish the right of the plaintiff to the undivided one-third of the west half of lots 7 and 8, in block 63, in the town of Portland, the same being of the value of $2,000, and for an account of the renta and profits thereof during the past six years. It appeara from the bill that on September 25, 1866, the plaintiff,,then a resident and citizen of California, commenced a suit in the court of that state to obtain a divorce from her busband, Charles Barrett, then a resident and citizen of Oregon, and on April 1, 1870, obtained a decree therein dissolving the bonds of marriage between herself and busband; that at the date of the commencement of said suit said Barrett was ths ����
