Lynch v. Lynch
| Citation | 34 R.I. 261,83 A. 83 |
| Parties | LYNCH v. LYNCH. |
| Decision Date | 13 May 1912 |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties; George T. Brown, Judge.
Action by Margaret E. Lynch against Charles W. Lynch. Judgment dismissing the petition, and petitioner excepts. Exceptions sustained, and case remanded for further proceedings as directed.
Page & Cushing, of Providence, for petitioner.
Cassius L. Kneeland, of Providence, for respondent.
The evidence clearly shows that at the time of the marriage of the above-named parties the petitioner had a husband living, who is still alive, and that they have never been divorced. The respondent, prior to his marriage with the petitioner, obtained for, and gave to her, a paper purporting to be a decree of divorce from her husband, but which was of no validity. Upon the strength of the same, and his representations to her, she married him, and they lived together as man and wife for many years. For the past ten years they have not cohabited. The petitioner applied for a divorce from the respondent upon the ground of nonsupport. The case was heard, as an uncontested petition, and decision was rendered in her favor. Subsequently the respondent made application to the court to vacate the decision and reinstate the case, in order that he might contest the same, which motion was granted by the court. The counsel for the petitioner thereupon made preparation for another trial of the case, and in the course of his investigations learned of the former marriage of the petitioner, ascertained the residence of her first husband, and had an interview with him, which disclosed the fact of the first marriage and that the same had never been anulled or terminated, whereupon the petitioner amended her petition for divorce by alleging that her marriage with the respondent was originally void. The case was then heard by a justice of the superior court, who decided that the petitioner had not come into court with clean hands, and thereupon dismissed the petition.
His opinion was that the petitioner knew or ought to have known that she was not divorced from her first husband, and that her continued cohabitation with the respondent was of a willfully bigamous nature, and that she was not entitled to relief in the premises under such conditions. Her legal status, however, is something in which the state as well as the parties are interested. If, as a matter of fact, she was already married when she...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Goodloe v. Hawk
...without regard to the guilt or innocence of the moving party. Thus, in Freda v. Bergman, 77 N.J.Eq. 46, 76 A. 460, 462, and Lynch v. Lynch, 34 R.I. 261, 83 A. 83, from the statement of fact in the opinions it appears that a married woman undertook, without benefit of any judicial divorce de......
-
Johnson v. Johnson
...to no other or further relief.' Szlauzis v. Szlauzis, 255 Ill. 314, 99 N.E. 640, L.R.A.1916C, 741, Ann.Cas.1913D, 454. "In Lynch v. Lynch, 34 R.I. 261, 83 A. 83, it appeared that the time of the marriage the wife, as here, had a husband living, from whom she had not been lawfully divorced. ......
-
Arthur W. Cook v. Florence J. M. Cook
...defense and does not prevent annulment, the following cases have come to our attention: Kiessenbeck v. Kiessenbeck, supra; Lynch v. Lynch, 34 R.I. 261, 263, 83 A. 83; Pain v. Pain, 37 Mo.App. Seacord v. Seacord, 3 Harr. 485, 33 Del. 458, 139 A. 80; Hunt v. Hunt, supra; Rose v. Rose, supra; ......
-
Dibble v. Meyer
... ... Idaho 653, 217 P 615; White v. Williams, 159 Miss. 732, 132 So. 573, 76 A.L.R. 757; Grotsch v. Hassey, 133 Misc. 373, 231 N.Y.S. 469; Lynch v. Lynch, R.I., 83 A. 403, also see 34 R.I. 261, 83 A. 83; In re Romano's Estate, 40 Wash.2d 796, 246 P.2d 501; In re Hollingsworth's Estate, 145 ... ...