McLaughlin v. McLaughlin

27 Citing cases

  1. Fuquay v. State

    114 So. 892 (Ala. Crim. App. 1927)   Cited 19 times

    Horace C. Wilkinson, of Birmingham, for appellant. While the fact that defendant lived with the Harvey woman for eight years and they claimed to be husband and wife, etc., was sufficient, standing alone and unexplained, from which the jury might infer or conclude that a common-law marriage had been contracted by the parties, yet, when the evidence disclosed that the parties separated, from what cause is not shown, and one of them subsequently contracted a ceremonial marriage, this as matter of law destroyed the presumption or inference arising from the circumstances tending to show a valid marriage between defendant and the Harvey woman. McLaughlin v. McLaughlin, 201 Ala. 482, 78 So. 388. The presumption is in favor of the validity of the last marriage. Weatherford v. Weatherford, 20 Ala. 548, 56 Am. Dec. 206; Ex parte Young, 211 Ala. 508, 101 So. 51; Bell v. Bell, 196 Ala. 465, 71 So. 465. Common-law marriage has been destroyed in this state.

  2. Williams v. Wilson

    210 Ala. 289 (Ala. 1923)   Cited 22 times
    In Williams v. Wilson, 210 Ala. 289, 97 So. 911, the suit was for redemption of lands from mortgage foreclosure by Charlie Williams against Wilson and others claiming by purchase.

    The burden of proof is upon those who deny it. Lay v. Fuller, 178 Ala. 375, 59 So. 609; Weatherford v. Weatherford, 20 Ala. 548, 56 Am. Dec. 206. The presumption of actual marriage from the fact of continued cohabitation is rebutted by the fact of a subsequent permanent relation. 18 R. C. L. 416; 26 Cyc. 880; 14 L.R.A. 543; Bell v. Bell, 196 Ala. 465, 71 So. 465; McLaughlin v. McLaughlin, 201 Ala. 482, 78 So. 388; Code 1907, § 5199. Kirk Rather, of Tuscumbia, for appellees.

  3. Ex Parte McLendon

    195 So. 733 (Ala. 1940)   Cited 16 times

    Since the first husband was alive at the time of the ceremonial marriage between the parties, and of the reference held before the register and the record showing no divorce, the subsequent marriage was unlawful. Fuquay v. State, 217 Ala. 4, 114 So. 898; McLaughlin v. McLaughlin, 201 Ala. 482, 78 So. 388; Ellis v. Ellis, 58 Iowa 720, 13 N.W. 65. The question of dissolution of the first marriage is one of fact. Rogers v. McLesky, 225 Ala. 148, 142 So. 526. The burden was upon the wife to show as matter of defense that she had been divorced by competent authority at the time of her marriage to petitioner.

  4. Smith v. Goldsmith

    134 So. 651 (Ala. 1931)   Cited 20 times

    Validity of marriage is not affected by an intent to evade prohibition against remarriage in divorce decree. Ponsford v. Johnson, 2 Blatchf. 51, Fed. Cas. No. 11,266; Horton v. Horton, 22 Ariz. 490, 198 P. 1105; In re Wood's Estate, 137 Cal. 129, 69 P. 900; Dudley v. Dudley, 151 Iowa, 142, 130 N.W. 785, 32 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1170; McLaughlin v. McLaughlin, 201 Ala. 482, 78 So. 388; Phillips v. Madrid, 83 Me. 205, 22 A. 114, 12 L.R.A. 862, 23 Am. St. Rep. 770; Whippen v. Whippen, 171 Mass. 560, 51 N.E. 174; Van Voorhis v. Brintnall, 86 N.Y. 18, 40 Am. Rep. 505; State v. Shattuck, 69 Vt. 403, 38 A. 81, 40 L.R.A. 428, 60 Am. St. Rep. 936; Boyles v. Wallace, 208 Ala. 213, 93 So. 908; 2 Kent's Comm. (14th Ed.) 92, 93; Bishop, Mar. Div. §§ 283, 286; State v. Hand, 87 Neb. 189, 126 N.W. 1002, 28 L.R.A. (N.S.) 753; Conn v. Conn, 2 Kan. App. 419, 42 P. 1006; Sturgis v. Sturgis, 51 Or. 10, 93 P. 696, 15 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1034, 131 Am. St. Rep. 724; Stevenson v. Gray, 17 B. Mon. (Ky.) 193; Reed v. Hudson, 13 Ala. 570. In absence of prohibitory statute, after absolute divorce, either party is at liberty to remarry.

  5. Owens v. Betts

    122 So. 811 (Ala. 1929)   Cited 4 times

    Kendrick v. Colyar, 143 Ala. 597, 42 So. 110. At the time Jack Mosely died in 1913, a judicial determination was necessary to vest title to the homestead in the widow, but this is true only as against other heirs; it is not necessary as between the widow and creditors or persons other than true legitimate heirs. Miles v. Lee, 180 Ala. 439, 61 So. 915. If there are conflicting marriages of the same spouse the presumption of law is that the second marriage is valid, and the burden of showing validity of the first is on the party asserting it. 26 Cyc. 877; McLaughlin v. McLaughlin, 201 Ala. 482, 78 So. 388; Bell v. Bell, 183 Ala. 645, 62 So. 833. As to slave marriages, see Carter v. Gains, 204 Ala. 640, 87 So. 109. The fact that Lizzie ordered complainant out merely shows that her title was disputed, which is statutory ground for filing a bill of this character.

  6. Walker v. Walker

    117 So. 472 (Ala. 1928)   Cited 24 times
    In Walker v. Walker, 218 Ala. 16, 117 So. 472, 473, is the observation from Turner v. Williams, 202 Mass. 500, 89 N.E. 110, 24 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1199, 132 Am. St. Rep. 511, by Mr. Chief Justice Rugg, that no presumption is conclusive as to the validity of the marriage status, that the case is to be "determined according to common sense aided to what extent it may be by the presumptions involved."

    Complainant's evidence did not warrant the decree of annulment. Ex parte Young, 211 Ala. 508, 101 So. 51; McLaughlin v. McLaughlin, 201 Ala. 482, 78 So. 388; 26 Cyc. 880; 18 R. C. L. 420. Mathews Mathews, of Bessemer, for appellee.

  7. Fuquay v. State

    217 Ala. 4 (Ala. 1927)   Cited 32 times

    Teter v. Teter, 101 Ind. 129, 51 Am. Rep. 742; Boulden v. McIntire, 119 Ind. 574, 21 N.E. 445, 12 Am. St. Rep. 453; Wenning v. Teeple, 144 Ind. 189, 41 N.E. 600; 32 A.L.R. 1118, note; 34 A.L.R. 465, note, 483, note. And in such collateral inquiries involving private rights, as the disaffirmance of marriage, compensation cases, that of legitimacy as affecting necessary parties to a suit, or parties in interest to contests of wills, were our decisions of Weatherford v. Weatherford, 20 Ala. 548, 556, 557, 56 Am. Dec. 206; Thompson v. Thompson, 91 Ala. 591, 8 So. 419, 11 L.R.A. 443; McLaughlin v. McLaughlin, 201 Ala. 482, 78 So. 388; Young v. Woodward Iron Co., 211 Ala. 508, 101 So. 51; Moore v. Heineke, 119 Ala. 627, 24 So. 374; Williams v. Wilson, 210 Ala. 289, 97 So. 911. To those cases we will later advert.

  8. Alto v. State Industrial Accident Commission

    246 P. 359 (Or. 1926)   Cited 8 times

    "The burden of proof is on the party assailing a marriage on the ground that a former husband or wife is still alive, to show not only the former marriage but also that it has not been dissolved by death or judicial decree and that the prima facie presumption in favor of the validity of the marriage assailed outweighs the presumption of the continuance of life of the former husband or wife." See, also, McAllum v. Spinks, 129 Miss. 237 (91 So. 694); Lewis v. Lewis, 60 Okla. 60 ( 158 P. 368); Howard v. Kelly, 111 Miss. 285 ( 71 So. 391, Ann. Cas. 1918E, 1230); In re Biersack, 96 Misc. Rep. 161 ( 159 N.Y. Supp. 519); James v. Adams, 56 Okla. 450 ( 155 P. 1121); Schubert v. Barnholt, 177 Iowa, 232 ( 158 N.W. 662); Bell v. Bell, 196 Ala. 465, ( 71 So. 465); Zimmerman v. Holmes, 59 Okla. 253 ( 159 P. 303); In re Pusey's Estate, 173 Cal. 141 ( 159 P. 433); In re Hughson's Estate, 173 Cal. 448 ( 160 P. 548); McLaughlin v. McLaughlin, 201 Ala. 482 ( 78 So. 388); Wilson v. Burnett, 105 Misc. Rep. 279 ( 172 N.Y. Supp. 673); Price v. Tompkins, 171 N.Y. Supp. 844; Copeland v. Copeland, 73 Okla. 252 ( 175 P. 764); Michaels v. Michaels, 91 N.J. Eq. 408 ( 110 A. 573); Farr v. Farr, 190 Iowa, 1005 ( 181 N.W. 268); O'Leary v. Lawrence, 138 Md. 147 ( 113 A. 638). These are but few of the great wealth of authorities on the subject. According to the stipulation there is nothing to depreciate the worth of the Colorado marriage except that there was an earlier marriage in Finland to which the decedent was a party.

  9. Routledge v. Githens

    245 P. 1072 (Or. 1926)   Cited 12 times
    In Routledge, a case decided several months earlier, the husband sought to have his present marriage declared invalid, alleging that his wife had a prior marriage and that the divorce decree for that marriage was void because of jurisdictional defects.

    The record falls far short of this standard. The following precedents are apropos: McAllum v. Spinks, 129 Miss. 237 ( 91 So. 694); Lewis v. Lewis, 60 Okla. 60 ( 158 P. 368); Howard v. Kelly, 111 Miss. 285 (71 So. 391, Ann. Cas. 1918E, 1230); In re Biersack, 96 Misc. Rep. 161 ( 159 N.Y. Supp. 519); James v. Adams, 56 Okla. 450 ( 155 P. 1121); Schubert v. Barnholt, 177 Iowa, 232 ( 158 N.W. 662); Bell v. Bell, 196 Ala. 465 ( 71 So. 465); Zimmerman v. Holmes, 59 Okla. 253 ( 159 P. 303); In re Pusey's Estate, 173 Cal. 141 ( 159 P. 433); In re Hughson's Estate, 173 Cal. 446 ( 160 P. 548); McLaughlin v. McLaughlin, 201 Ala. 482 ( 78 So. 388); Wilson v. Burnett, 105 Misc. Rep. 279 ( 172 N Y Supp. 673); Price v. Tompkins, 171 N.Y. Supp. 844; Copeland v. Copeland, 73 Okla. 252 ( 175 P. 764); Michaels v. Michaels, 91 N.J. Eq. 408 ( 110 A. 573); Farr v. Farr, 190 Iowa, 1005 ( 181 N.W. 268); O'Leary v. Lawrence, 138 Md. 147 ( 113 A. 638). These are but few of the great wealth of authorities on the subject. The decree of the Circuit Court dismissing this suit is affirmed.

  10. McClurkin v. McClurkin

    206 Ala. 513 (Ala. 1921)   Cited 100 times
    In McClurkin v. McClurkin, 206 Ala. 513, 90 So. 917, it was held that an order of the circuit court dismissing the petition of a widow to set aside homestead exemptions was a determination of the widow's right and was therefore final and would support an appeal.

    Appellant and the decedent contracted a valid common-law marriage. 55 Ala. 108; 94 Ala. 501, 10 So. 646; 117 Ala. 80, 23 So. 640, 67 Am. St. Rep. 163; 119 Ala. 627, 24 So. 374; 175 Ala. 532, 57 So. 714; 176 Ala. 480, 58 So. 444; 201 Ala. 482, 78 So. 388. Appellee's evidence does not show a valid statutory marriage. Sections 4881 and 4884, Code 1907; 194 Ala. 613, 69 So. 885, L.R.A. 1916B, 1243.