38 N.E. 703 (Ill. 1894), Cole v. Cole
|Citation:||38 N.E. 703, 153 Ill. 585|
|Opinion Judge:||WILKIN, C.J.|
|Party Name:||COLE v. COLE et al. |
|Attorney:||Conkling & Grout, for appellant. Patton & Hamilton, for appellees, as to the presumption of the validity of a second marriage during the lifetime of the first husband or wife, cited Ellis v. Ellis, 58 Iowa, 720, 13 N.W. 65; Gilman v. Sheets, 78 Iowa, 499, 43 N.W. 299.|
|Case Date:||October 30, 1894|
|Court:||Supreme Court of Illinois|
Appeal from circuit court, Sangamon county.
Bill for partition by Emma Cole and others against Catherine Cole. Complainants obtained a decree. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.
This is an appeal from a decree assigning and ordering partition of certain real estate rendered by the court below upon a bill in chancery by appellees against appellant. The bill alleged title to the premises in one George Cole, who died intestate, seised thereof, leaving certain brothers and sisters, his only heirs. Emma Cole claimed dower as his surviving widow. Appellant was made defendant to the bill, with the allegation that she [153 Ill. 586] also claimed to be the widow of George Cole, but averring that she was never legally married to him. She answered, setting up that she was lawfully married to said George Cole, in the state of Indiana, September 28, 1888, and lived with him as his wife from that time until his death. She denied that the complainant Emma Cole had any interest whatever in the premises, and claimed in her own right one-half thereof in fee, and dower in the other half. The only litigated question in the case was as to which of the two, Emma or Catherine, was the lawful surviving widow of George Cole, deceased. The court below found that issue against appellant, and entered its decree in accordance with the prayer of the bill. The only ground of reversal urged upon this appeal is that the finding against appellant was not authorized by the proofs.
It is clear from the testimony of Emma Cole, as well as that of other witnesses, that she was legally married to the deceased in Staffordshire, England, on the 13th day of February, 1865, and there lived and cohabited with him for about one year, when he deserted her, and came to this country. She continued to live in England, and still resides there. He never returned to that country. He married one Amelia Hahn, in Sangamon county, this state, in 1875, and lived with her until about 1887, when she obtained a divorce from...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP