Clark v. Clark, 16454
Decision Date | 13 February 1951 |
Docket Number | No. 16454,16454 |
Parties | CLARK v. CLARK et al. |
Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Joseph P. Constantine, Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Byron G. Rogers, James H. Rogers, Denver, for defendants in error.
This is an action brought by Ina Harris Clark against Joseph I. Clark and Eva Waddell for divorce from the former, and other relief. It was stipulated and agreed by all parties that the trial court should first determine the validity of the marriage of the parties before deciding other issues involved. The court held that the marriage was invalid, and plaintiff seeks reversal of the judgment. The sole question here presented is whether or not a valid common-law marriage existed between the parties.
It was fully established, as the trial court held, that plaintiff and defendant Joseph I. Clark began living together in 1942, and continued to do so until July 9, 1949, when this action was commenced; that during all of that period they appeared as, and were reputed to be, husband and wife; that at the inception of such relations, both parties had living spouses from whom they were not divorced; that in August, 1945, defendant was divorced from his former wife, and in August, 1947, plaintiff was divorced from her former husband, thereby removing all impediments to a valid marriage.
The trial court in ruling on the question submitted, said:
It clearly appears from the opinion of the trial court that he would have held the marriage in question valid if the parties had separated at the time the impediment was removed, the illicit relationship terminated, and had thereafter resumed cohabitation.
Many cases are cited and relied upon by counsel for the respective parties, which, as said, call for an affirmance or reversal of the judgment. It is unnecessary to analyze or discuss these cases, as most of them were fully considered by us in Rocky Mountain Fuel Co., v. Reed, 110 Colo. 88, 130 P.2d 1049, where the issue now before us was determined adversely to the contention of defendant in the present case. We there said:
* * *
* * *
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Lucero, 85SC318
...or agreement be manifested by conduct that gives evidence of the mutual understanding of the parties. See, e.g., Clark v. Clark, 123 Colo. 285, 229 P.2d 142 (1951); Moffat Coal Co. v. Industrial Comm'n, 108 Colo. 388, 118 P.2d 769 (1941); Clayton Coal Co. v. Industrial Comm'n, 93 Colo. 145,......
-
Goldin v. Goldin, 879
...if the relationship is illicit in the beginning, strong evidence is required to demonstrate a change in the status. Clark v. Clark, 123 Colo. 285, 229 P.2d 142 (1951); People v. Shaw, 259 Ill. 544, 102 N.E. 1031 (1913); In re Binger's Estate, supra; Schaffer v. Krestovnikow, 89 N.J.Eq. 549,......
-
Binger's Estate, In re, 33487
...60, 87 P. 538; Davis v. People, 83 Colo. 295, 264 P. 658; Rockey Mountain Fuel Co. v. Reed, 110 Colo. 88, 130 P.2d 1049; Clark v. Clark, 123 Colo. 285, 229 P.2d 142. Plaintiff relies upon the above cases, but they are all distinguishable. The parties therein all lived in and were bona fide ......
-
Graham v. Graham, 17257
...* * *' See also: Smith v. People, 64 Colo. 290, 170 P. 959; Rocky Mountain Fuel Co. v. Reed, 110 Colo. 88, 130 P.2d 1049; Clark v. Clark, 123 Colo. 285, 229 P.2d 142. The determination of the weight of the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom are for the trial On the......
-
Common Law Marriage in Colorado
...63 (1935). 10. Davis v. People, 83 Colo. 295, 264 P. 658 (1928); Poole v. People, 24 Colo. 510, 52 P. 1025 (1898). 11. Clark v. Clark, 123 Colo. 285, 229 P.2d 142 (1951); Rocky Mtn. Fuel Co. v. Reed, 110 Colo. 88, 130 P.2d 1049 (1942); Smith v. People, supra, note 2. 12. Peterson v. Lewis, ......