McVicker v. McVicker

D.C. Circuit

McVicker v. McVicker

130 F.2d 837, 76 U.S. App. D.C. 208, 1942 U.S. App. LEXIS 3205

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedAugust 20, 1942

DocketNo. 8019

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 130 F.2d 837 (McVicker v. McVicker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McVicker v. McVicker, 130 F.2d 837, 76 U.S. App. D.C. 208, 1942 U.S. App. LEXIS 3205 (D.C. Cir. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from a decree which dismissed appellant’s complaint for limited divorce, and granted appellee’s cross-complaint for annulment, on the ground that the marriage ceremony between the parties took place before the end of a six-month waiting period prescribed by a Virginia decree which had divorced appellee from a former wife. We think the court erred. For, as it found, the parties “relying on said ceremonial marriage lived together as husband and wife in the District of Columbia for more than two years preceding” the filing of appellant’s complaint. In this jurisdiction, “the removal of an impediment while parties continue to live together as husband and wife gives rise to a common-law marriage.” Thomas v. Murphy, 71 App.D.C. 69, 70, 107 F.2d 268. Parrella v. Parrella, 74 App.D.C. 161, 120 F.2d 728. We need not consider questions of estoppel, laches, and waiver.

Reversed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from a decree which dismissed appellant’s complaint for limited divorce, and granted appellee’s cross-complaint for annulment, on the ground that the marriage ceremony between the parties took place before the end of a six-month waiting period prescribed by a Virginia decree which had divorced appellee from a former wife. We think the court erred. For, as it found, the parties “relying on said ceremonial marriage lived together as husband and wife in the District of Columbia for more than two years preceding” the filing of appellant’s complaint. In this jurisdiction, “the removal of an impediment while parties continue to live together as husband and wife gives rise to a common-law marriage.” Thomas v. Murphy, 71 App.D.C. 69, 70, 107 F.2d 268. Parrella v. Parrella, 74 App.D.C. 161, 120 F.2d 728. We need not consider questions of estoppel, laches, and waiver.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

130 F.2d 837, 76 U.S. App. D.C. 208, 1942 U.S. App. LEXIS 3205, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcvicker-v-mcvicker-cadc-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack