Simmons v. Simmons

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Simmons v. Simmons

2 D.C. 56

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 1, 1935

DocketEquity No. 59608

StatusPublished

This text of 2 D.C. 56 (Simmons v. Simmons) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District of Columbia Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Simmons v. Simmons, 2 D.C. 56 (D.C. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

LUHRING, J.

1. The plaintiff and the defendant were married on the 10th day of January, 1935, at Ellicott City, Maryland, by the Reverend Carl Mumford.

[57]*572. At the time the marriage ceremony was performed they were under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The liquor was supplied to the plaintiff by the defendant and she was so far under its influence that she was incapable of understanding, and did not understand, the nature of the marriage ceremony. Because of her intoxication she could not and did not know that she was entering into a marriage contract with the defendant. The Court further finds that the defendant caused the plaintiff to drink excessively for the purpose of making her drunk so as to induce her to marry him. It was under such circumstances that she participated in the ceremony.

3. The parties have not lived or cohabited together as husband and wife since the alleged marriage.

CONCLUSIONS

The marriage is void as to the plaintiff, and she is entitled to a decree of annulment.

It is so ordered.

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

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

LUHRING, J.

1. The plaintiff and the defendant were married on the 10th day of January, 1935, at Ellicott City, Maryland, by the Reverend Carl Mumford.

[57]*572. At the time the marriage ceremony was performed they were under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The liquor was supplied to the plaintiff by the defendant and she was so far under its influence that she was incapable of understanding, and did not understand, the nature of the marriage ceremony. Because of her intoxication she could not and did not know that she was entering into a marriage contract with the defendant. The Court further finds that the defendant caused the plaintiff to drink excessively for the purpose of making her drunk so as to induce her to marry him. It was under such circumstances that she participated in the ceremony.

3. The parties have not lived or cohabited together as husband and wife since the alleged marriage.

CONCLUSIONS

The marriage is void as to the plaintiff, and she is entitled to a decree of annulment.

It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 D.C. 56, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/simmons-v-simmons-dc-1935.