State v. Cone

Wisconsin Supreme Court

State v. Cone

57 N.W. 50, 86 Wis. 498, 1893 Wisc. LEXIS 200

CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 28, 1893

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 57 N.W. 50 (State v. Cone) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wisconsin Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Cone, 57 N.W. 50, 86 Wis. 498, 1893 Wisc. LEXIS 200 (Wis. 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

"WiNslow, J.

The question is, Was the first marriage void or voidable only? If void, then there was no bigamy; if [500]*500voidable only by the decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, then there was a marriage subsisting until such decree was rendered, albeit an imperfect one. Speaking of such a marriage, it was said by this court in the case of Eliot v. Eliot, 77 Wis. 634: “ This marriage is not an absolute nullity. It is only annulled from such time as shall be fixed by the judgment of the court. R. S. sec. 2350.¹ That time may, and in many contingencies should, be fixed at a later date than that of the marriage. During the time intervening the marriage is valid.” This language was used advisedly, and is supported by the great weight of authority. We see no reason for departing from it now. Beggs v. State, 55 Ala. 108, and authorities cited. The case of Shafher v. State, 20 Ohio, 1, is an authority to the contrary, but we do not deem it well supported either in reason or authority. It follows that the question submitted must be answered in the affirmative.

By the Court.— Question answered in the affirmative.

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

"WiNslow, J.

The question is, Was the first marriage void or voidable only? If void, then there was no bigamy; if [500]*500voidable only by the decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, then there was a marriage subsisting until such decree was rendered, albeit an imperfect one. Speaking of such a marriage, it was said by this court in the case of Eliot v. Eliot, 77 Wis. 634: “ This marriage is not an absolute nullity. It is only annulled from such time as shall be fixed by the judgment of the court. R. S. sec. 2350.¹ That time may, and in many contingencies should, be fixed at a later date than that of the marriage. During the time intervening the marriage is valid.” This language was used advisedly, and is supported by the great weight of authority. We see no reason for departing from it now. Beggs v. State, 55 Ala. 108, and authorities cited. The case of Shafher v. State, 20 Ohio, 1, is an authority to the contrary, but we do not deem it well supported either in reason or authority. It follows that the question submitted must be answered in the affirmative.

By the Court.— Question answered in the affirmative.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 N.W. 50, 86 Wis. 498, 1893 Wisc. LEXIS 200, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-cone-wis-1893.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack