State v. Cone

Wisconsin Supreme Court

State v. Cone

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

Wisconsin Supreme Court·Decided November 28, 1893·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

"WiNslow, J.

The question is, Was the first marriage void or voidable only? If void, then there was no bigamy; if [500] voidable 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.

Footnotes

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] voidable 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.

Footnotes

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

Pincite

57 N.W. 50 (State v. Cone) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Footnotes

Related