Marsh v. Whittington

88 Miss. 400
Mississippi Supreme Court·Decided April 15, 1906·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Oaxhoon, J.,

delivered the opinion'of the court.

The contract of marriage, like any other contract, may be annulled on the grounds of duress, such as to deprive the party of his free will. In this case, the chancellor held that there was no free will because of the fear of bodily harm. 2 Nelson on Divorce, secs. 617 — 622; Anderson v. Anderson, 147 N. Y., 719 (42 N. E. Rep., 721) ; Sloan v. Kane, 10 How. Prac. (N. Y.), 66; Smith v. Smith, 51 Wis., 665 (8 N. W. Rep., 868); Marks v. Crume, 29 S. W. Rep., 436 (16 Ky. Law Rep., 707) ; Bassett v. Bassett, 9 Bush (Ky.), 696. The chancellor held that there was such duress in this case, and that there was no subsequent ratification, and, on this record, we concur in his holding.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Marsh v. Whittington, 88 Miss. 400 (Mich. 1906).

88 Miss. 400 (Marsh v. Whittington) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

White v. Williams
132 So. 573 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1931)