Fowler v. Fowler

• Decision Date: 20 January 1913
• Docket Number: 19,182
• Citation: 131 La. 1088,60 So. 694
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Parties: FOWLER v. FOWLER

60 So. 694

131 La. 1088

FOWLER v. FOWLER

No. 19,182

Supreme Court of Louisiana

January 20, 1913

SYLLABUS

(Syllabus by the Court.)

No marriage is valid to which the parties have not freely consented; and consent is not free when it is obtained as the result of a threat that the party will be killed unless he gives it.

In order that a marriage into which one of the parties has been coerced may be validated by ratification, it is necessary that the ratification should take place after the coercion or duress, has ceased to be operative.

Richardson & Richardson, of Homer, for appellant.

Wimberly & Reeves, of Shreveport, for appellee.

OPINION

MONROE, J.

Plaintiff has appealed from a judgment rejecting his demand that the marriage between him and defendant be annulled for want of consent on his part. The defense is a general denial and plea of estoppel by ratification.

But three witnesses were examined, all of them called by plaintiff; the first being the father of defendant, placed on the stand as a matter of necessity, the other two being the brother and sister-in-law of plaintiff.

T. J. Williamson, defendant's father, testified that he went into a field where plaintiff was plowing, and told plaintiff that he must marry defendant, or he would kill him; that he refused to allow plaintiff to go to his home for a change of clothing, lest he should fail to return; that he accompanied plaintiff and defendant to Homer (the parish seat), applied, and paid, for the marriage license, and after the marriage (which he did not actually witness) returned with the parties to his home, where plaintiff spent the night in the same room with defendant, but that he left the next day, and returned to his mother's house which was his home. He was asked whether he had not armed himself before going into the field, and, the question having been objected to, the objection was sustained.

It otherwise appears that the events above narrated happened on Monday, May 8th, and the morning of Tuesday, May 9, 1911. On the following Friday, May 12th, as plaintiff had not returned, the witness (Williamson) took occasion to speak to Mrs. J. B. Fowler, his (plaintiff) sister-in-law, who testifies (in part) as follows upon that subject, to wit:

'He told me when he went to the field where Alvin [plaintiff] was he had to marry her, live with her, and treat her right, or he would kill him; and, then he says, 'He has not done what he said he would do.' * * * When I started to leave, he said: 'I don't know whether he will come back or not. He can go far, if he wants to. He can run off if he wants to. He may go far or near; but I will get him.' * * * He told me to tell Bud to stop there, * * * that he wanted to talk with him. Q. who is Bud? A. My husband. * * * Q. Did you tell your husband what he said? A. Yes, sir. * * * Q. Which way did he go? A. He went up the road towards Mr. Williamson's house. I also saw them standing there in the road, in front of Mr. Williamson's house.'

J. B. Fowler (brother of plaintiff and husband of the witness whose testimony is above quoted) gave the following, with other, testimony:

'Q. Did you see Mr. Williamson on the Friday evening that your brother went back over there late that evening? A. Yes, sir. Q. How come you to go up there? A. My wife said that Mr. Williamson said stop there, he wanted to talk with me. * * * Q. Repeat what Mr. Williamson said to you? * * * A. He said that Alvin had not done what he agreed to do, and said he went to him in the field and gave him a chance for his life, and told him he could either marry or die, and he said he would marry, and he said he hadn't done it. Q. He said he hadn't married her? A. Said he hadn't married her. Q. What did he say? A. Said he hadn't married her. Q. What else did he say? * * * A. He said he could leave if he wanted to, he might go far or near, but he would get him. Said he was not making him come back. * * * Q. Where did you go after you left Mr. Williamson's? A. To my mother's. Q. Did you tell your brother what he had said? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did your brother go back after you told him what Mr. Williamson has said, if you know of you own knowledge? A. Yes, sir.'

Plaintiff did go back to Mr. Williamson's late that Friday evening and he remained there for 12 days, during which time he occupied the same room, and, presumably, slept in the same bed, with defendant. He then went to Shreveport, in search of employment, it is said, and, returning at the end of say six days, again went to Williamson's house, slept one night with defendant, and left the next morning, to return no more. There is some testimony to the effect that Williamson caused his arrest on a charge of nonsupport of his wife, and thereafter, on July 3, 1911, this suit was instituted. Williamson denies some of the...