Webster v. Webster

58 N.H. 3
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Webster v. Webster. Read the opinion of the Court — 58 N.H. 247
Supreme Court of New Hampshire·Decided December 5, 1876·Published

Opinion

Sawyer, J.

The plaintiff was incapable of contracting a valid marriage with Webster in 1855, because she then had a husband living from whom she was not divorced. Mass. Rev. St., c. 75, s. 4 (Gen. St., c. 106, s. 4); c. 76, s. 1 (Gen. St., c. 107, s. 1). The exemption from the criminal punishment of polygamy in certain cases (Mass. Rev. St., c. 130, ss. 2, 3; Gen. St., c. 165, ss. 4, 5) does not render the second marriage valid. Kenley v. Kenley, 2 Yeates 207; Fenton v. Reed, 4 Johns. 52; Williamson v. Parisien, 1 Johns. Ch. 389; Glass v. Glass, 114 Mass. 563; 2 Kent Com. 79. It is not necessary to consider whether Hiram v. Pierce, 45 Me. 367, gives the true construction of that provision of the Massachusetts statutes, by which, under some circumstances, the issue of the second marriage is “ deemed to be the legitimate issue of the parent capable of contracting the marriage.” The plaintiff is not the widow of Webster.

Case discharged.

Foster, J., did not sit.

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

Webster v. Webster, 58 N.H. 3 (N.H. 1876).

58 N.H. 3 (Webster v. Webster) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Inhabitants of Hiram v. Pierce
45 Me. 367 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1858)
Fenton v. Reed
4 Johns. 52 (New York Supreme Court, 1809)
Williamson v. Parisien
1 Johns. Ch. 389 (New York Court of Chancery, 1815)
Glass v. Glass
114 Mass. 563 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1874)
Kenley v. Kenley
2 Yeates 207 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1797)