Holgate v. United Elec. Rys. Co.

• Decision Date: 07 May 1926
• Docket Number: No. 668.,668.
• Citation: 133 A. 243
• Parties: HOLGATE v. UNITED ELECTRIC RYS. CO.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

133 A. 243

HOLGATE

v. UNITED ELECTRIC RYS. CO.

No. 668.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

May 7, 1926.

Appeal from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties; Chester W. Barrows, Judge.

Petition for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Agnes E. Holgate, claimant, for the death of her husband, Richard A. Holgate, opposed by the United Electric Railways Company, employer. From a decree in the superior court for petitioner, respondent appeals. Appeal dismissed, decree affirmed, and cause remanded.

John L. Curran, of Providence, for petitioner.

Clifford Whipple and Earl A. Sweeney, both of Providence, for respondent.

SWEENEY, J. This is a petition for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act (Gen. Laws 1923, § 1205 et seq.).

The petitioner avers that she is the widow of Richard A. Holgate, who lost his life by reason of an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with the respondent. After hearing in the superior court decision was rendered for the petitioner and a decree entered thereon., Respondent has brought the petition to this court by its appeal, claiming that the court erred in finding that the petitioner was the wife of Richard A. Holgate at the time of his death. The questions raised by the appeal are: (1) Is a common-law marriage valid in this state; and (2) does the evidence prove such a marriage?

The facts relevant to the marriage of the petitioner are as follows: April 19, 1907, Mr. Holgate and the petitioner, both residents of this state, went to North Attleboro, Mass., and were married by a justice of the peace This marriage was absolutely void, because Mr. Holgate had a wife living at the time from whom he had not been divorced. Section 4159, G. L. 1923. He had, however, obtained a decision in the superior court of this state January 7, 1907, granting his petition for an absolute divorce from his wife, but this decision did not become final and operative until August 5, 3907, when final decree was entered, and he might marry again. Section 4230, G. L. 1923. After the marriage Mr. Holgate and the petitioner immediately returned to this state and lived together here as husband and wife until the death of Mr. Holgate in May, 1924.

The validity of a common-law marriage has never been decided by this court. In Peck v. Peck, 12 R. I. 485, 34 Am. Rep. 702, and Odd Fellows' Ben. Ass'n v. Carpenter, 17 R. I. 720, 24 A. 578, the court was of the opinion that the evidence did not prove a common-law marriage, and found it unnecessary to decide the validity of such a marriage.

Our statute relating to marriage (chapter 287, G. L. 1923), does not forbid common-law marriages. The Legislature could have declared such marriages void the same as it has declared marriages of persons within certain specified degrees of kindred void. Most of the provisions of this chapter relate to the designation of persons authorized to perform the ceremony of marriage, the necessity for obtaining a marriage license, and the return thereof. These provisions are directory only as section 4176 of said chapter provides that the validity of a marriage shall not be affected by reason of noncompliance with any of the requirements of the chapter, if the marriage is in other respects lawful and has been performed with a full belief on the part of the persons so married, or either of them, that they have been lawfully joined in marriage.

This court said, in Chace, Petitioner, 26 R. I. 351, 354, 58 A. 978, 979 (69 L. R. A. 493, 3 Ann. Cas. 1050):

"While our statutes prescribe certain formalities and requirements in connection with the entering into the marriage relation, it is to be carefully borne in mind that they nowhere declare that the failure to observe any or all of said formalities or requirements shall have the effect to render a marriage void."

After careful consideration of the question, we are of the opinion that a common-law marriage is valid in this state.

The Circuit Court, District of Rhode Island, held that a common-law marriage was valid in this state in Mathewson v. Phoenix Iron Foundry (C. C.) 20 F. 281. In a majority of the states common-law marriages are held valid, and the statutory provisions relative to the licensing and solemnization of marriages have been held to be directory merely, and not to affect the validity of common-law marriages. The cases on this subject are annotated in 39 A. L. R. 538; 26 Cyc. 840; Meister v. Moore, 96 U. S. 76, 24 L. Ed. 826.

...