69 Cal.App. 685, Civ. 4249, Clendenning v. Parker
|Citation:||69 Cal.App. 685, 231 P. 765|
|Opinion Judge:||HOUSER, Judge|
|Party Name:||GARRETT CLENDENNING, as Administrator, etc., Appellant, v. D. E. PARKER, Respondent|
|Attorney:||Delphin M. Delmas and Delmas & Brown for Appellant. Daly, Daly & Todd and J. E. Pawson for Respondent.|
|Judge Panel:||JUDGES: HOUSER, J. Conrey, P. J., and Curtis, J., concurred. Conrey, P. J., and Curtis, J., concurred.|
|Case Date:||November 19, 1924|
|Court:||California Court of Appeals|
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Charles S. Burnell, Judge.
This is an action involving the title and possession of certain real property, brought by plaintiff as administrator of the estate of Charlotte Haley, sometimes known as Charlotte Parker, deceased, against D. E. Parker, who claims as the husband of said deceased.
The facts herein, as shown by the bill of exceptions, are that on November 22, 1915, Michael Haley and decedent were married in the city of Seattle, state of Washington, where they resided as husband and wife until some time in the latter part of September, 1916, at which time the wife went to the city of Los Angeles, California. At the city of Santa Ana, California, on the ninth day of October of the same year, which was but a few days after Mrs. Haley
left Seattle, a marriage ceremony was performed between her and defendant Parker. On October 15, 1919, a deed of conveyance of the property here involved was executed to Mrs. Haley (or Mrs. Parker), and on December 8, 1919, under the name of Charlotte Parker, she made a declaration of homestead on said property for the joint benefit of herself and her husband D. E. Parker, defendant herein. The evidence shows that at the time Mrs. Haley was married to defendant, her husband, Michael Haley, was still living, and that he died on the twenty-second day of July, 1920.
On the trial of the action it was contended, and it is here urged, that the presumptions that a person is innocent of any crime or wrong, and that the law has been obeyed, are sufficient to give validity to the marriage of Mrs. Haley to defendant.
A very few days elapsed between the time that Mrs. Haley left her husband in Seattle, Washington, and married defendant at Santa Ana, California. The evidence introduced by plaintiff to rebut the presumption upon which defendant relied was that Mrs. Haley and Michael...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP