Gardner v. Gardner
| Decision Date | 27 February 1919 |
| Citation | 122 N.E. 308,232 Mass. 253 |
| Parties | GARDNER v. GARDNER et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Land Court, Hampden County; Jos. J. Corbett, Judge.
Petition for registration of land by Rosella Gardner against Sadie E. Gardner and others. From an order denying registration, petitioner appeals. Order affirmed.
Thibodeau, Ellsworth & Yont, of Boston, for appellant.
Elva Y. Van Winkle, of Salt Lake City, Utah, and Chas. L. Young, of Springfield, for appellees.
This is a petition for registration of land. The question of title turns upon the validity of the marriage of the respondent with Horace S. Gardner, who died in 1915, intestate, seized of the locus. The petitioner was married to the deceased in 1893, but because of his desertion procured a divorce nisi from him on January 16, 1901, which became absolute six months later. In the meantime, in November, 1900, the deceased under an assumed name went through a marriage ceremony in New York with the respondent, then an eighteen year old school girl living at home in Pennsylvania. In the following April, revealing to her his real name, he told her to go home to her father and wait until he sent for her to come to his home in North Adams in this commonwealth, where he was going on business, and would remarry her under his proper name. He then went to his father's home and brought in Berkshire county a libel for divorce against the petitioner. The petitioner, although served with process, paid no attention to it because she had already procured a divorce herself. The deceased then sent for the respondent, who came to his father's house in North Adams where he for the first time told her of his marriage to the petitioner, but stated that he had just obtained a divorce. On July 8, 1901, the deceased under his right name obtained a decree nisi for a divorce from the petitioner. On July 15, 1901, one day before the petitioner's decree nisi became absolute, the deceased took the respondent to Hoosick Falls in New York and there was married to her under his right name. In the certificate of this marriage his residence was described as North Adams, Massachusetts, and her residence as Scranton, Pennsylvania, where she was born although she had not lived there for several years before her first marriage ceremony. This certificate also described her status as ‘married’ but that this was the first marriage of either party. The judge of the land court further found that:
Thereafter they lived in this commonwealth, where four children were born to them, and the deceased bought the locus. When he died the deceased left the petitioner and one son by her (who has conveyed to her his interest in the locus), and the respondent and her four children.
The finding of the land court is that at the time of the remarriage in July, 1901, both the deceased and the respondent were residents of this commonwealth. The facts set forth in the finding justify this inference, Intention always is an important factor in determining domicile. Whately v. Hatfield, 196 Mass. 393, 82 N. E. 48,13 Ann. Cas. 690;Emery v. Emery, 218 Mass. 227, 105 N. E. 879. There are not enough facts in this record to require a reversal upon this point.
The pivotal question is whether, in entering into the marriage of July, 1901, both parties,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Smith
...by G.L. (Ter.Ed.) c. 207, § 6, was a question of fact as to 'whether there [was] actual honesty of purpose', Gardner v. Gardner, 232 Mass. 253, 258, 122 N.E. 308, 309, and did not depend upon 'freedom from knowledge of any circumstances which ought to put a person of ordinary intelligence a......
-
Harding v. Townsend (In re Gould's Estate)
...to the law of the State of their domicil of origin and residence. Green v. Kelley, 228 Mass. 602, 118 N. E. 235. See Gardner v. Gardner, 232 Mass. 253, 122 N. E. 308;In re Hall, 61 App. Div. 266, 277-278, 70 N. Y. S. 406. Therefore, the decisive point is whether the respondents were the leg......
-
Hopkins v. Hopkins
...186, 71 N. E. 313;Turner v. Williams, 202 Mass. 500, 506, 89 N. E. 110,24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1199, 132 Am. St. Rep. 511;Gardner v. Gardner, 232 Mass. 253, 122 N. E. 308. There is nothing inconsistent with this statement in other cases where section 6 has been considered and held not to be app......
-
Fraser v. Fraser
...marriage ceremony in another State is not the 'good faith' to which special consideration is extended by that section. Gardner v. Gardner, 232 Mass. 253, 258, 122 N.E. 308. In that case the parties had gone to New York to be married, and it was said by this court at page 257 of 232 Mass., a......