Odd Fellows' Ben. Ass'n of R.I. v. Carpenter

• Decision Date: 28 May 1892
• Citation: 17 R.I. 720,24 A. 578
• Parties: ODD FELLOWS' BEN. ASS'N OF RHODE ISLAND v. CARPENTER et al.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

24 A. 578

17 R.I. 720

ODD FELLOWS' BEN. ASS'N OF RHODE ISLAND

v. CARPENTER et al.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

May 28, 1892.

Interpleader between the Odd Fellows' Beneficial Association of Rhode Island, complainant, and Maria H. Carpenter and others, the children of John A. Carpenter, respondents, in which Maria H. Carpenter claims to be the widow of John A. Carpenter. Judgment against her claim.

Ziba O. Slocum, for complainant.

Charles C. Mumford, for respondent Maria H. Carpenter.

Charles E. Gorman and James T. Egan, for respondents the children of John A. Carpenter.

TILLINGHAST, J. The respondent Maria H. Carpenter claims that she is the widow of John A. Carpenter, deceased, and as such is entitled to the fund in dispute; and the only issue of fact submitted to the court at the trial was whether she was his widow. In support of her claim, she testified that she kept house for the deceased from October, 1888, till February, 1890; that her first husband died in December, 1888; that she and the deceased shortly afterwards agreed to be married to each other, and in pursuance thereof, on the 13th of February, 1889, went to Fall River, Mass., where a ceremonial marriage was solemnized by a clergyman authorized to solemnize marriages, or before a person who was represented by the deceased to be so authorized, and whom she believed was so authorized. She did not produce any certificate of marriage, or any record evidence thereof, or any witness to the same. She could not give the name of the clergyman who performed the ceremony, nor could she tell upon what street or in what part of said city he resided. She further testified that after said marriage she continued to live with the deceased as his wife till his death, which occurred on August 3, 1889. Evidence was also offered that the deceased, on one or more occasions, spoke of the respondent as his wife,—one witness testifying that he introduced her to him as such,—and also that they lived together, for a short time before the death of said John, apparently as husband and wife. It further appeared that the deceased made a will in which he referred to the respondent as his wife, and bequeathed to her all of his property, and constituted her his sole executrix. On the other hand, the respondents the children of the said John A. Carpenter offered evidence to the effect, that in March, 1889, the deceased stated to one of the complainant's officers that he had no wife and that, on being visited during his illness in the same month by a member of the order, he spoke of the respondent as "Maria, a woman that keeps house for me;" also that the deceased on one occasion, upon being told that it was reported that he was married, replied that "You mustn't believe everything you hear." Upon this state of the proof, the court was not satisfied that any ceremonial marriage between the deceased and the respondent ever took place, and so decided. The respondent now contends that notwithstanding her failure to prove a ceremonial marriage, as set up by her, yet that she has proved a common-law marriage, known as a marriage per verba de presenti, and hence that she is the widow of said John A. Carpenter, and entitled to said fund. The question as to the validity of such a marriage has not been decided by this court, nor do we find it necessary to decide it in this case; for even assuming that such a marriage is valid in this state, yet we are not satisfied that the proof submitted establishes the existence thereof.¹ Leaving out of account the testimony of the respondent as to a ceremonial marriage which has already been passed upon by the court, there remains the evidence that, being a married woman, she lived with the deceased as his housekeeper from October, 1888, till the death of her husband in December, 1888, and that there afterwards, and until August 3, 1889, she continued to live with the deceased in some capacity; that to two or three persons he introduced her or spoke of her as his wife, while to others he denied that he had a wife, and spoke of her as his housekeeper; and, finally, that he referred to her in his will dated July 19, 1889, as his wife, making her his sole legatee and executrix. This evidence, taken as a whole, and considered as favorably in behalf of the respondent as the circumstances will permit, shows the fact of cohabitation between the parties for a period of about five months, contradictory statements made by the deceased as to whether the respondent was his wife, and a will made by him, in which he recognizes her as his wife. We do not feel that, upon such...