In re Sargent
Decision Date | 08 July 1916 |
Citation | 98 A. 117 |
Parties | In re SARGENT. |
Court | Maine 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.
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:
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-
Mitchell v. Mitchell
...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 ......