Bowman

This is the second appeal in this action of Frances C. Bowman to annul the marriage of Horace D. Bowman and Bryan Houston Bowman. In the first trial judgment was entered for Frances C. Bowman, Bryan Houston Bowman appealed and the judgment was reversed. (Bowman v. Bowman, 97 Cal. App. 613 [ 275 Pac. 1023 ; 1024].) Frances C. Bowman asked for a rehearing, which was denied and hearing in the Supreme Court was also denied. Then Frances C. Bowman moved for a new trial in the court below on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence to -sustain the findings. This motion was granted and the case was tried again. Judgment was again entered in favor of Frances C. Bowman and Bryan Houston Bowman again appeals.

From a study of the record before us we find the facts to be as follows: Frances C. Bowman and Horace D. Bowman intermarried October 16, 1915; on September 28, 1923, Frances C. Bowman filed suit for divorce against Horace D. Bowman; Bryan Houston, a girlhood friend of twenty years who had often visited in the home of the Bowmans, staying over week-ends, and who had encouraged Prances many times not to put up with the conduct and ill treatment of Horace, appeared and testified…

Counsel for appellant in their petition for rehearing do not seem to grasp the underlying reasons for our affirmance of the judgment of the lower court.

Bryan Houston Bowman filed her cross-complaint in the court below seeking to vacate an order of the superior court which set aside the final decree of divorce terminating the marriage of Frances C. Bowman and Horace D. Bowman. In filing this cross-complaint she took the position of a plaintiff (cross-complainant) asking relief in a court of equity. The trial court, upon ample evidence, found that she did not come into court with clean hands. Under the well-established doctrine of equity, that a person must come into a court -of equity with clean hands, the trial court denied her the relief she sought in her cross-complaint, and in so far as she sought redress under its allegations, left her where it found her. For a like reason, among others, we also left her in the same position she occupied at the -time she filed her cross-complaint, in so far as the relief she sought by this pleading is concerned.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Marks, Acting P. J., and Jennings, J., concurred.

A petition by appellant to have the cause heard…