33 S.E.2d 288 (Va. 1945), Needam v. Needam

Citation:33 S.E.2d 288, 183 Va. 681
Opinion Judge:Spratley
Party Name:FRIZELLE NEEDAM, BY LEVIN NEEDAM, HIS FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND v. MILDRED MATTHEWS NEEDAM, AN INFANT, ETC.
Attorney:H. Ames Drummond, for the appellant.
Case Date:March 05, 1945
Court:Supreme Court of Virginia
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 288

33 S.E.2d 288 (Va. 1945)

183 Va. 681

FRIZELLE NEEDAM, BY LEVIN NEEDAM, HIS FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND

v.

MILDRED MATTHEWS NEEDAM, AN INFANT, ETC.

Supreme Court of Virginia

March 5, 1945

        [183 Va. 682] H. Ames Drummond, for the appellant.

        No appearance for the appellee.

        SPRATLEY, J.

        [183 Va. 683] We have under review a decree of the Circuit Court of the County of Accomack, entered on March 24, 1944, in which the trial court dismissed appellant's bill praying for an annulment of his marriage with appellee. In the decree of dismissal there is set out the following finding of facts by the court:

        '1. That the complainant was born on the 3rd day of May, 1923; and the respondent was born on the 13th day of June, 1924;

        '2. That the parties, both bona fide residents of Virginia at the date of their marriage, as well as at the time this suit was instituted, were married at Snow Hill, Maryland, on the 23rd of November, 1941;

        '3. That immediately after their said marriage, they returned to Virginia and established their residence in the home of the said Levin and Lillie Willis Needam, the father and mother of complainant, in Accomack County, Virginia, where they

Page 289

remained for some months, and during such residence, they cohabited together as husband and wife;

        '4. That complainant and respondent went to the State of Maryland for the purpose of getting married because they had been denied the consent of complainant's father and mother;

        '5. That, some months after their marriage, complainant took respondent to the home of her parents in Accomack County where, by agreement between the parties, she was to live, and did thereafter live, with her parents; and complainant remained with, and did thereafter live, with his parents, because of some incompatibility between respondent and her mother-in-law;

        '6. That complainant had been coming to see respondent while this arrangement was in force until just before the institution of this suit;

        '7. That the statute law of the State of Maryland, in which said marriage was solemnized, provides that any male person under twenty-one years of age or any female person between 16 and 18 years of age, with the consent of a parent or guardian, may marry, if otherwise qualified by [183 Va. 684] law; and that complainant was beyond the age of 18 years and respondent beyond the age of 17 at the time of said marriage, and both were otherwise qualified by law in that state to marry on the 22nd day of November, 1941; and that said marriage is valid and binding on the parties in the State of Maryland;

        '8. That the license for said marriage was obtained on the application and oath of complainant from the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Worcester County, Maryland, which application recited that the complainant was 21 years of age and the respondent 19, but without the written consent of the parents, or either of them, of either of the contracting parties;

        '9. That the respondent did not desert and abandon the complainant as in...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP