Griffin v. Beddow
Decision Date | 07 May 1954 |
Citation | 268 S.W.2d 403 |
Parties | GRIFFIN v. BEDDOW et al. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
James F. Clay, Danville, for appellant.
Jay. W. Harlan, Danville, Joseph J. Leary, Frankfort, Joe Davis, Danville, for appellee.
The opinion upon the first appeal of this case appears in 257 S.W.2d 45. There it was held, under an allegation of facts accepted as being true upon demurrer, that the marriage of an idiot or a lunatic was so repugnant to the fundamental public policy of this state that the general rule--the validity of a marriage contract is governed by the lex loci contractus and celebrationis--was not applicable. Upon return to the circuit court the case was tried on the sole issue of whether Robert L. Beddow was a lunatic on January 30, 1950, when a marriage ceremony was performed between him and Josephine Epperson at Columbus, Mississippi, while both were residents of Kentucky.
The chancellor presided over the trial at which many witnesses were heard, and concluded that Robert L. Beddow, on the nuptial day, was capable of understanding the nature of a marriage contract with its resultant duties and responsibilities. He reached this conclusion after evaluating the evidence under these rules: 1. The law presumes that a person who has entered into a marriage contract was mentally capable of entering into such a contract. 2. The burden of showing that a party to such a contract lacks such capacity devolves upon the person attacking the validity of the marriage. We believe the attitude assumed by the chancellor was correct.
In Vest's Adm'r v. Vest, 234 Ky. 587, 28 S.W.2d 782, 783, this rule was approved:
.
Additional supporting authority may be found in 35 Am.Jur., Marriage, Sec. 113; Griffith v. Lunney, 300 Ky. 66, 187 S.W.2d 431, and Littreal v. Littreal, Ky., 253 S.W.2d 247.
With these principles in mind the chancellor analyzed the evidence adduced and, since we believe his findings to be correct, we adopt the following portion of his opinion:
'So far as the court recalls, there is no testimony of substance tending to show that there was any change in his mental condition from the latter part of December, the date of the last visit of Dr. Jester, until the date of his marriage.
'The circumstances under which the marriage took place, the manner in which the trip was made to Mississippi from Kentucky and the marriage ceremony performed in Mississippi does seem most unusual to the court and compels the court to look with a good deal of suspicion upon it; but...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Del Camino Courts, Inc. v. Curtice, 5315
-
Thomas v. Platt
...the trial court accepted the testimony of one set of witnesses and rejected the evidence given by another set of witnesses. Griffin v. Beddow, Ky., 268 S.W.2d 403. However, in the case at bar, there is little conflict in the testimony and we agree with the trial court that no evidence point......