Johnson v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 22 January 1910
• Citation: 106 P. 500,57 Wash. 89
• Parties: JOHNSON v. JOHNSON.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

106 P. 500

57 Wash. 89

JOHNSON v. JOHNSON.

Supreme Court of Washington

January 22, 1910

Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, King County; A. W. Frater Judge.

Action by Nannie N. Johnson against Amel Johnson. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed, with directions.

P. P Carroll, for appellant.

RUDKIN C.J.

This is an appeal from a judgment denying a divorce to the appellant and dismissing her action. The case is brought here on the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and decree. The only findings we deem it necessary to set forth or consider are the following: 'That plaintiff and defendant were married at Victoria, B. C., May 2, A. D. 1905, and ever since have been and now are husband and wife. That at the time of said marriage the parties hereto were domiciled in the city of Seattle, county of King, state of Washington, and that to avoid the law of this state prohibiting said marriage they went to Victoria, B. C., and were married there immediately returning to the said city of Seattle, where they have ever since made their domicile. That plaintiff and defendant are first cousins of the whole blood, the mother of plaintiff and the mother of defendant being sisters of the whole blood.' There was no appearance by the defendant in the court below, and no brief has been filed in this court by him or in his behalf, but from such investigation as we have been able to give the subject we are at a loss to know upon what ground or for what reason the divorce was denied. Section 4468, Ballinger's Ann. Codes & St. (Pierce's Code, § 1791), declares that: 'Marriages in the following cases are prohibited: * * * (2) When the parties thereto are nearer of kin to each other than second cousins, whether of the whole or half-blood, computing by the rules of the civil law; (3) * * * and if any person being within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity in which marriages are prohibited by this section carnally know each other, they shall be deemed guilty of incest, and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state penitentiary for a term not exceeding ten years and not less than one year.' 'A marriage between relations within the prohibited degrees is void, its continuance is repugnant to good morals and public policy, and it will be annulled at the instance of either party, notwithstanding the applicant entered into it knowingly and willfully.' 26 Cyc. 907.

In considering the validity...