In re Sargent

Decision Date08 July 1916
Citation98 A. 117
PartiesIn re SARGENT.
CourtMaine Supreme Court

Exceptions from Supreme Judicial Court, Hancock County, at Law.

In the matter of Ellen M. Sargent, petitioner for annulment of marriage. From a decree denying and dismissing the libel, petitioner excepts. Exceptions overruled.

Argued before SAVAGE, C. J., and BIRD, HANSON, PHILBROOK, and MADIGAN, JJ.

J. P. Cilley, of Rockland, and D. E. Hurley, of Ellsworth, for petitioner. John F. A. Merrill, U. S. Dist. Atty., of Portland, for the United States.

BIRD, J. This is a libel as of divorce for the annulment of a marriage under the provisions of R. S. c. 62, § 15. The libel alleges the marriage of the petitioner, then of Ellsworth, and one Alvarado Moseley, also of Ellsworth, on the 13th day of December, 1871. and—

"that the validity of this marriage is doubted because of a prior marriage of Alvarado Moseley under date of December 13, 1869, to one Ellen M. Sargent, of Rockland, a different person from your libelant, who was living at the date of your petitioner's said marriage on December 13, 1871, and who had not been lawfully divorced."

The libel further alleges:

"That said Alvarado Moseley is dead, and that no pecuniary interests are involved or are in any way affected by said desired annulment of said marriage of December 13, 1871, except her (petitioner's) own pecuniary interest in a pension as the widow of Charles L. Sargent, who died from disease contracted in the United States military service while on duty in the Fourteenth Maine Volunteer Infantry."

Service was ordered and made upon the attorney of the United States for the District of Maine, who appeared and asked the dismissal of the libel upon the ground that one of the parties to the marriage is dead, and also upon the ground that upon two similar libels of the petitioner, asking annulment of the same marriage for the same reasons, on which after hearings upon the merits, final judgments were rendered against her.

At the hearing upon the libel now before the court, the presiding justice found the following facts, upon which the parties agree:

"That the said Ellen M. Sargent presented to the October term, 1908, of the Supreme Judicial Court for Hancock county, Me., a libel signed by her, and dated October 13, 1908, which libel is identical with the libel now before this court, except that in this one she has included the additional allegation 'that one child, to wit, Susan T. Sleeper, of Bar Harbor, Me., was born of said marriage.'

"At the April term, 1909, the matter of said libel of October 13, 1908, was reported to the law court, and thereafter, on December 17, 1910, a mandate was sent down from the law court as follows: 'Report discharged. Case remanded for further hearing in the court below.'

"At the April term, 1911, of said court a hearing was had on said libel, and thereupon an entry was made on the docket in said cause as follows: 'Petition denied 6th day. Emery, C. J., Presiding.'

"April 11, 1911, a motion for a new trial was filed, and thereafter, June 6, 1912, a mandate from the law court was sent down as follows: 'Motion overruled for want of prosecution.'

"On March 19, 1913, said Ellen M. Sargent filed another libel in said court, signed by her, dated March 13, 1913, which is identical with her said libel of October 13, 1908. Upon said libel hearing was had upon the merits at the April term of said court, 1913, and thereupon, after said hearing, the justice presiding entered on the docket of said court, 'Petition denied.'

"Thereafter, on April 14, 1914, said Ellen M. Sargent filed a petition, asking for a writ of review in the matter of the libel of March 13, 1913, and the decisions of the court thereon. No notice was given of the pending of said petition, and no notice was ordered thereon."

Whereon the presiding justice made the following ruling:

"After consideration of the allegations contained in the petitioner's libel, especially the fact that the said Alvarado Moseley, one of the parties to said marriage, is dead, and that there is no allegation in said libel that the petitioner desires said marriage to be annulled for any other purpose than that said marriage may no longer be an obstacle in the prosecution of her claim to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Mitchell v. Mitchell
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • March 23, 1940
    ...Burns v. Baldwin-Doherty Co., 132 Me. 331, 170 A. 511. And this rule applies to proceedings for annulment of marriage. Sargent, Petitioner, 115 Me. 130, 98 A. 117. In the instant case, the libelant charges in his libel, among other things, that this marriage was obtained by duress. This is ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT