McVicker v. McVicker

130 F.2d 837, 76 U.S. App. D.C. 208, 1942 U.S. App. LEXIS 3205
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit·Decided August 20, 1942·No. No. 8019·Published·Cited by 8 cases

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

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

130 F.2d 837 (McVicker v. McVicker) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Queen v. Queen
521 A.2d 320 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1987)
Jennings v. Jennings
315 A.2d 816 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1974)
Matthews v. Britton
303 F.2d 408 (D.C. Circuit, 1962)
Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Chase
189 F. Supp. 326 (D. New Jersey, 1960)
Henderson v. Henderson
87 A.2d 403 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1952)
Hess v. Hess
1947 OK 16 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1947)