Hilton v. Roylance
| Decision Date | 21 July 1902 |
| Docket Number | 1368 |
| Citation | 69 P. 660,25 Utah 129 |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
| Parties | ANNIE F. A. HILTON, Appellant, v. ROSA P. ROYLANCE, Respondent |
Appeal from the Third District Court, Salt Lake County.-- Hon. W. C Hall, Judge.
Action by the plaintiff, as the surviving wife and widow of John R Park, deceased, claiming as such widow to be entitled to one-third of certain real estate which the deceased in his lifetime sold to the defendant, to have the same partitioned and set apart to her as her separate property in fee simple. From a decree in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff appealed.
REVERSED.
N. v Jones, Esq., and Messrs. Powers, Straup & Lippman for appellant.
Messrs. Bennett, Sutherland, Van Cott & Allison, Messrs. Pierce, Critchlow & Barrette, and Messrs. Stewart & Stewart for respondent.
STATEMENT OF FACTS.
The plaintiff brought this action as the surviving wife and widow of John R. Park, deceased, and claims that she, as such widow, is entitled to one-third of certain real estate which the deceased in his lifetime sold to the defendant, and to have the same partitioned and set apart to her as her separate property in fee simple. It is alleged in the complaint, among other things, that the plaintiff and John R. Park, now deceased, intermarried at Salt Lake City, Utah territory, on or about the first day of December, 1872, and were thereafter husband and wife, until the death of the decedent, which occurred at Salt Lake City about September 30, 1900; that the plaintiff is still the surviving wife and widow of the decedent, and is a resident of Utah; that the decedent in his lifetime was the owner of certain real estate described in the complaint, which he conveyed by deed to the defendant about August 7, 1900; that the plaintiff never in any manner conveyed or relinquished her rights in the said real estate, or any part thereof, and is now the owner of one-third in value of the property; and that the defendant entered into possession of the property under the deed, and has refused, and still refuses, upon demand made, to relinquish possession to plaintiff of her interest therein. The prayer is that the plaintiff be adjudged to be the surviving wife and widow of the deceased, and that one-third of the real estate be set apart to her as her separate property. The defendant, in her answer, admits the ownership and sale of the property by the decedent in his lifetime, and her refusal to relinquish possession of any part thereof. She denies that the parties were married, and, further answering, alleges, inter alia, that about December 5, 1872, John R. Park and the plaintiff were "sealed," or went through a "sealing ceremony," whereby they agreed to be husband and wife after death; that the "sealing ceremony" was performed when the plaintiff was on her supposed deathbed, and after John R. Park had been assured that she would die; that both parties were members of the Mormon Church; that it was a tenet of that church that a man and a woman might be sealed, so that they would be husband and wife after death (that is, in eternity), and that both parties believed in that tenet; that the sealing ceremony was performed, not as a marriage contract, but in pursuance of said tenet only; that thereafter, upon the plaintiff unexpectedly recovering, the parties lived separate and apart, and agreed to "dissolve all such relationship between them as husband and wife"; that John R. Park remained an unmarried man; that the plaintiff about 1873 married William Hilton, and they ever since have lived together as husband and wife, and have had born to them ten children; and that after said agreement the plaintiff did not claim to be the legal wife of John R. Park until after his death.
It appears from the evidence that in 1872 the plaintiff, then Annie F. Armitage, nineteen years of age, met and was introduced to Dr. John R. Park, then an unmarried man of about forty years of age, a popular educator and resident of the territory of Utah. Dr. Park was a member of the Mormon Church, and Miss Armitage had also been converted to that faith. The meeting occurred on the steamship Minnesota, at Liverpool, England, and on their voyage to America the parties continued their acquaintance, and traveled together to New York. Dr. Park was kind and attentive to the lady on the voyage, and on their arrival at New York continued to pay her attention. After remaining in New York several days, Miss Armitage continued her journey to Utah and Dr. Park followed later, about October. After his arrival in Utah the doctor called frequently on the plaintiff, and their relations became intimate. About the middle of November, while staying at the house of Emeline Free Young, the plaintiff was taken ill, and continued to grow worse until she was not expected to live, when Mrs. Young, according to plaintiff's testimony, advised her that it would be better, in the event of her death, to be married than single, and said to her that she felt sure that Dr. Park intended to make her his wife, and advised her to accept him. To this she finally consented, and Dr. Park was sent for, and on December 5, 1872, while thus on her sick bed, and not expected to live, she and Dr. John R. Park were, by mutual consent, sealed by Daniel H. Wells, a member of the "first presidency" of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, in the presence of a number of witnesses, most of whom are now dead. Concerning the ceremony, the plaintiff testified that Dr. Park and Mr. Wells, who officiated, both came to the bedside, and that Mr.Wells then said, "Take her right hand in yours doctor; take Annie's right hand in yours doctor;" that Mr. Wells then said, "John R. Park, are you willing to take Annie F. Armitage as your lawful wedded wife?" to which the doctor said, "Yes;" that Mr. Wells then asked her a similar question (if she would take John R. Park to be her lawful husband), which she answered, "Yes;" and that Mr. Wells then, after saying something which she did not quite remember, said: "I now pronounce you husband and wife for time and all eternity." President Wells then issued a certificate of "sealing" to the parties, as follows: Indorsed across the face of it: "Recorded in historian's office, journal of date, R. L. C." In answer to the question: "Now will you state the relative position that they occupied, one to the other, when the ceremony was performed?" the witness Mrs. Hannah C. Wells said: Dr. Park did not consent to have the ceremony performed until the attending physician advised him that the patient had but a short time to live. This information was given the doctor outside the hearing of the plaintiff. Right after the ceremony, it appears, the parties were left alone together. The plaintiff, testifying, said she thought the doctor remained with her about an hour, and that she understood the marriage to take effect at once. Dr. Park continued thereafter to make frequent visits to her, while she was recovering from sickness, until about the month of February, when he ceased to visit her. She thereupon, on two different occasions, having met him in the street, insisted upon a divorce. The doctor agreed to arrange it for her, and about the nineteenth of March, 1873, appeared at the house where plaintiff was staying, when they mutually agreed upon and signed a document known as a "church divorce," which reads as follows: In October, 1875, a marriage ceremony between plaintiff and William Hilton was performed in accordance with the rites of the Mormon Church, which marriage was admitted to be valid, if the plaintiff was then capable of contracting that relation. Thereafter she lived with William Hilton as his wife, and a number of children have been born to them. The ceremony was also performed by Daniel H. Wells. The plaintiff thought her church divorce was valid until she noticed the decision of this court in the case of Norton v. Tufts. Dr. Park never married again. In his lifetime he owned the property in dispute, and conveyed it by deed to the defendant, but the plaintiff relinquished no rights therein which she may have acquired because of the marriage. At the trial the court decided that John R. Park and the plaintiff never became or were husband and wife, and that the plaintiff is neither the owner of, nor entitled to any part of, the premises in controversy. Thereupon this appeal was taken.
BARTCH, J., having stated the facts as above, delivered the opinion of the court.
The principal question to be determined is, were John R. Park and Annie F. Armitage lawfully...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Toncray v. Budge
...marital relation and particularly as to "celestial and patriarchal marriage." For this latter purpose we have consulted the opinion in Hilton v. Roylance freely, for the reason that it gives more information and references on this specific subject than anything else we have found. We presum......
-
Brown v. Buhman
...into the legal status of marriage.” Id. at ¶ 150 n. 9, 137 P.3d at 765 (Durham, C.J., dissenting in part) (citing Hilton v. Roylance, 25 Utah 129, 69 P. 660, 670 (1902) which had held that participation in a religious ceremony was sufficient to establish a marriage cognizable at common law)......
-
State v. Holm
...assuming that all other requirements, such as licensure, were met. See Utah Code Ann. § 30-1-6 (Supp.2004); cf. Hilton v. Roylance, 25 Utah 129, 69 P. 660, 670 (1902) (holding that a sealing ceremony performed by an LDS Church official in 1872 effected a marriage cognizable at common law). ......
-
Hilton v. Stewart
...F. A. Hilton v. Rosa P. Roylance, a case tried in the same court. These three cases, to wit, In re Park Estate, Stewart v. Hilton, and Hilton v. Roylance, all tried together, and all appealed simultaneously and heard together in the supreme court of the state of Utah. The opinions in these ......