Haywood v. Nichols

• Decision Date: 11 November 1916
• Docket Number: 20506
• Citation: 160 P. 982,99 Kan. 138
• Parties: HAYWOOD ET AL. v. NICHOLS.
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

160 P. 982

99 Kan. 138

HAYWOOD ET AL. v. NICHOLS.

No. 20506

Supreme Court of Kansas

November 11, 1916

Syllabus

The evidence examined, and held, that the presumption no legal impediment to a second marriage existed when the marriage was contracted, was not overcome, and that persistence of the matrimonial relations after the asserted disability of one of the parties was removed, made them husband and wife under the common law.

Appeal from District Court, Shawnee county.

Action by Charlotte Haywood and another against Melinda Nichols. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Edwin D. McKeever, of Topeka, for appellants.

Jamison & Jamison, of Topeka, for appellee.

OPINION

BURCH, J.

The action in the district court was one of ejectment, brought by the brother and sister, heirs of George Haywood, deceased, against Melinda Nichols, who claimed to have taken title by virtue of being the surviving spouse of George Haywood. The decision turned on whether or not the defendant was married to George Haywood at the time of his death. Judgment was rendered against the plaintiffs, and they appeal.

In 1881, the defendant married Richard Pool at Ft. Madison, Iowa. Afterwards Richard Pool was incarcerated in the Iowa state penitentiary, from which he was released in the year 1885. Directly following his release, he commenced an action for divorce in the district court of Lee county, Iowa, against the defendant, who was then residing in Burlington, Iowa. She signed some papers which she supposed entitled him to a divorce. The action was dismissed on January 5, 1886. The records of Lee county, Iowa, disclose no other divorce suit between the parties. Pool died in Lee county, Iowa, on October 31, 1904. The defendant did not see Pool after he was taken to the penitentiary and had no correspondence with him. She was told that Pool had a divorce, that he married again, and that he died in 1889. In 1890 she was married to George Haywood, in Lafayette county, Mo., according to the formalities prescribed by the laws of that state. She and Haywood lived and worked together as husband and wife until Haywood’s death in 1906, and by their joint efforts acquired the property in controversy. They had no children. There was some conflict in portions of the evidence. The court found that the defendant was the true and lawful wife of George Haywood at the time of his death.

There was a presumption in favor of the validity of the defendant’s second marriage which has been described as the strongest known to the law. Shepard v. Carter, 86 Kan. 125 119 P. 533, 38 L. R. A. (N. S.) 568. Although it involved proving a negative, the plaintiffs were required to establish the fact that the marriage with Pool had not been legally dissolved. The proof tended somewhat in that direction. Pool lived in Lee county, Iowa, in 1885, died there in 1904, and the only divorce action appearing on the court records of...