Harpold v. Doyle
| Decision Date | 07 June 1909 |
| Citation | 16 Idaho 694,102 P. 158 |
| Parties | MARY HARPOLD, Respondent, v. WILLIAM DOYLE, Appellant |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
[Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Judgment affirmed with costs in favor of the respondent.
A rehearing was granted in this case and the cause has again been exhaustively argued both orally and in briefs of counsel for both parties. All of the questions presented by counsel upon the rehearing were fully considered by this court in the original opinion, except the one question as to whether Mrs. Harpold could enter into a contract to marry before the expiration of six months after the granting of divorce in her suit against Gainey, although such marriage contract was not to be consummated until after the expiration of six months from the date of such decree.
Sec. 2617, Rev. Codes, makes "A subsequent marriage contracted by any person during the life of a former husband or wife of such person, with any other person other than such former husband or wife, . . . . illegal and void from the beginning unless: (1) The former marriage of either party has been annulled or dissolved more than six months." It is the marriage when entered into within six months from the date of the decree which this statute makes void and not the agreement to marry. The statute does not prohibit a person from entering into an agreement to marry before six months has expired after the date of the decree, if such agreement is to be consummated and the marriage contract actually made after the expiration of the six months. In the case at bar the contract alleged in the complaint was not to be carried out in violation of the laws of the state. It was an agreement to marry to be consummated at a time when the marriage would have been valid, and it is this agreement which the plaintiff alleges the defendant failed to keep and for which damages were sought. The statute does not prohibit the making of such an agreement or render the same illegal or void, and the authorities hold that such an agreement is valid. This question was directly before the supreme court of California in the case of Buelna v. Ryan, 139 Cal. 630, 73 P. 466, in which the court said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
On Rehearing
... ... upon the rehearing were fully considered by this court in the ... original opinion, except the one question as to whether Mrs ... Harpold could enter into a contract to marry before the ... expiration of six months after the granting of divorce in her ... suit against Gainey, although ... ...