Vondal v. Vondal

56 N.E. 586, 175 Mass. 383, 1900 Mass. LEXIS 776
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided March 2, 1900·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

Barker, J.

Although at the time of her marriage the libellee was afflicted with syphilis, and knew of her disease and [384]*384concealed it from the libellant, the disease at that time was probably not contagious, and could have been so treated that it would not be communicated by contagion, and so as probably to make her free from suffering any ill effects from the disease. It is to be presumed that she could bear children, although her offspring would probably have been affected by the disease. The marriage was followed by cohabitation for four months, and, consummation must be presumed.

As was plainly intimated in Smith v. Smith, 171 Mass. 404, 410, the concealed existence of venereal disease of such a character, in one of the parties to a marriage which has been consummated, is not a sufficient ground for a decree of nullity of marriage. Exceptions overruled.

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

Vondal v. Vondal, 56 N.E. 586, 175 Mass. 383, 1900 Mass. LEXIS 776 (Mass. 1900).

56 N.E. 586 (Vondal v. Vondal) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Arndt v. Arndt
82 N.E.2d 908 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1948)
Dyjak Mistal v. Mistal
52 N.E.2d 418 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1943)
MacE v. MacE
23 A.2d 185 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1941)
Licato v. Licato
164 Misc. 105 (New York Supreme Court, 1937)
Richardson v. Richardson
246 Mass. 353 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1923)
Chipman v. Johnston
130 N.E. 65 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1921)
Ysern v. Horter
110 A. 31 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1920)
C v. C
148 N.W. 865 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1914)
Svenson v. . Svenson
70 N.E. 120 (New York Court of Appeals, 1904)
di Lorenzo v. di Lorenzo
71 A.D. 509 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1902)