175 P. 764 (Okla. 1918), 8145, Copeland v. Copeland
|Citation:||175 P. 764, 73 Okla. 252, 1918 OK 597|
|Opinion Judge:||PRYOR, C.|
|Party Name:||COPELAND et al. v. COPELAND et al.|
|Attorney:||Bruce L. Keenan, of Tahlequah, for plaintiffs in error. J. Berry King, of Tahlequah, and R. M. Mountcastle, of Ft. Gibson, for defendants in error.|
|Judge Panel:||PER CURIAM. Adopted in whole.|
|Case Date:||October 22, 1918|
|Court:||Supreme Court of Oklahoma|
Syllabus by the Court.
Where a marriage has been consummated in accordance with the form of the law, the law indulges a strong presumption in favor of its validity. One who asserts the invalidity of such a marriage, because one of the parties thereto has been formerly married and the spouse of such former marriage is still living, has upon him the burden of proving that the first marriage has not been dissolved by divorce or lawful separation. Syllabus, Haile v. Hale, 40 Okl. 101, 135 P. 1143.
The evidence of the plaintiffs in this cause, who attack the validity of the marriage of one of the defendants on the ground that she married a person who had a wife living and undivorced, is examined, and held sufficient to meet the above requirements.
Under section 8420, Revised Laws of 1910, which provides: "The issue of all marriages null in law, or dissolved by divorce, are legitimate"-a child born of a marriage contracted and consummated in accordance with the form of the law, which for any reason (such as one of the parties having a living spouse undivorced) is invalid and inherits and transmits by descent as though born in lawful wedlock.
Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.
The courts of Oklahoma take judicial notice of the other courts of the state and their jurisdiction.
The law presumes that a public official performs his duty.
The courts of Oklahoma take judicial notice of the courts established by the acts of Congress and of Oklahoma.
Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 3. Error from District Court, Cherokee County; John H. Pitchford, Judge.
Suit by J. C. Copeland and Samantha A. Copeland Lovejoy against Martha Copeland and Elizabeth Copeland. There was a judgment in the county court for defendants, and from the judgment of the district court on appeal in favor of defendants, and from the overruling of a motion for new trial, plaintiffs bring error. Judgment rendered, decreeing plaintiffs and defendant Elizabeth Copeland the heirs of Joe Copeland, deceased, and giving each a one-third interest in his property.
On the 16th day of November, 1914, plaintiffs in error, Samantha A. Lovejoy and J. C. Copeland, filed their petition in the county court of Cherokee county in probate cause No. 1883 entitled "In the Matter of the Estate of Joe Copeland, Deceased, Martha Copeland, Administratrix," asking that they be adjudged the sole heirs at law of Joe Copeland, and that they have distributed to them whatever property the said Joe Copeland possessed at the time of his death. The defendants in error, Martha Copeland and Elizabeth Copeland, filed their answer, denying the petition, and alleging that...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP