Thompson v. Thompson

114 Mass. 566
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedJanuary 15, 1874
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 114 Mass. 566 (Thompson v. Thompson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Thompson v. Thompson, 114 Mass. 566 (Mass. 1874).

Opinion

Gray, C. J.

To constitute a valid marriage by the law of this Commonwealth, it must be solemnized between parties competent to contract it, and (except in the case of Quakers) before a person being or professing to be a justice of the peace or minister of the gospel. Milford v. Worcester, 7 Mass. 48. Gen. Sts. c, 106, §§ 14-20.

At the time of the ceremony of marriage between these parties, the husband was incapable of contracting marriage in this [568]*568Commonwealth, because he had been divorced, for his fault, from a former wife (who must be inferred from this report to have been still living), and had not obtained from the court leave to marry again. Gen. Sts. c. 107, § 25. The solemnization of the second marriage, therefore, gave it no validity, and the cohabitation between the parties was unlawful at its beginning, and could only become lawful upon a new solemnization of matrimony after the husband had obtained leave to marry again.

The case, as stated in the report, shows that such new solemnization was not proved to the satisfaction of the presiding judge as matter of fact, and does not require it to be presumed as matter of law. Northfield v. Plymouth, 20 Vt. 582. The mere belief of either or both parties that they were husband and wife does not constitute a legal marriage. White v. White, 105 Mass. 325. A decree of nullity must, therefore, be entered as prayed for. Glassy. Glass, ante, 563.

Decree of rmllity.

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

Related

Rhodes v. Rhodes
96 F.2d 715 (D.C. Circuit, 1938)
Hall v. Baylous
153 S.E. 293 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1930)
Huard v. McTeigh
232 P. 658 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1925)
Brokeshoulder v. Brokeshoulder
1921 OK 412 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1921)
Woodward v. Blake
164 N.W. 156 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1917)
Commonwealth v. Stevens
82 N.E. 33 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1907)
Whippen v. Whippen
51 N.E. 174 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1898)
Pratt v. Pratt
21 L.R.A. 97 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1892)
Stewart v. Vandervort
34 W. Va. 524 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1890)
Googins v. Googins
25 N.E. 833 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1890)
Cartwright v. McGown
12 N.E. 737 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1887)
Cook v. Cook
10 N.E. 749 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1887)
Teter v. Teter
88 Ind. 494 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1883)
Commonwealth v. Munson
127 Mass. 459 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1879)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
114 Mass. 566, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-thompson-mass-1874.