Mauldin v. Sunshine Mining Company, a Corp.

• Decision Date: 14 December 1939
• Docket Number: 6710
• Citation: 97 P.2d 608,61 Idaho 9
• Parties: LAVERNE MAULDIN, Surviving Widow of JOHN LEWIS MAULDIN, Deceased, Appellant, and STATE ex Rel. CALVIN E. WRIGHT, State Auditor, Respondent, v. SUNSHINE MINING COMPANY, a Corporation, Respondent
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

97 P.2d 608

61 Idaho 9

LAVERNE MAULDIN, Surviving Widow of JOHN LEWIS MAULDIN, Deceased, Appellant, and STATE ex Rel. CALVIN E. WRIGHT, State Auditor, Respondent, v. SUNSHINE MINING COMPANY, a Corporation, Respondent

No. 6710

Supreme Court of Idaho

December 14, 1939

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION-DEPENDENTS-COMMON LAW WIFE-MARRIAGE-PRESUMPTION-EVIDENCE-APPEAL-SPECIFICATIONS OF ERROR, SUFFICIENCY OF.

1. Where appellant's specifications of error recited that the Industrial Accident Board erred in entering its findings of fact "V" and "VI" in entering its rulings of law "1" and "II" and "in entering its award in favor of the State of Idaho," Supreme Court would not refuse to consider appeal on ground that the specifications did not meet Supreme Court rules where specifications were thoroughly discussed in briefs and were supported by relevant authority.

2. The law presumes morality, not immorality, marriage, not concubinage, legitimacy, and not bastardy, and every intendment of the law leans to matrimony.

3. When a marriage has been shown in evidence, whether regular or irregular, and whatever the form of proof, the law raises a strong presumption of its legality, casting the burden of proof upon the party objecting and requiring him in every particular to make plain against the constant pressure of such presumption, the truth of law and fact that marriage is illegal and void.

4. Evidence was sufficient to establish that relationship of husband and wife existed between compensation claimant who alleged that she was deceased employee's surviving widow and employee, raising a strong presumption of legality of the relationship and casting burden of proof upon employer and state, which claimed right to compensation on ground that employee had no dependents, to repel such presumption by the most cogent and satisfactory evidence. (I. C. A., secs 31-201, 31-203, and sec. 43-1101, as amended by Sess. Laws 1935, chap. 147.)

5. In compensation proceeding, evidence with respect to fact that claimant, who alleged that she was surviving widow of deceased employee, had twice before been married was not material to question whether claimant was widow of deceased employee.

(I. C A., secs. 31-201, 31-203, and sec. 43-1101, as amended by Sess. Laws, 1935, chap. 147.)

6. Where a subsequent marriage has been shown to exist, there arises a presumption that any impediment theretofore existing had been removed prior thereto, and such presumption prevails where either death or divorce may have removed the former impediment, the presumption being so strong that evidence to overcome it must be so cogent and conclusive as to fully preclude any other result.

7. The presumption that impediment to valid marriage had been removed casts burden upon the party attacking validity of marriage to show by clear, cogent, and satisfactory evidence, not only the facts of former marriage, but further fact that no divorce has been obtained from the former spouse and that death has not removed the former spouse.

8. Where compensation claimant who alleged that she was surviving widow of deceased employee introduced evidence of mutual assumption of marital rights, duties, and obligations, and that parties held themselves out as husband and wife, record which was silent regarding whether former spouses of claimant were dead or alive, and was likewise silent regarding question of divorce, was insufficient to show any impediment to marriage between claimant and deceased employee. (I. C. A., secs. 31-201, 31-203, and sec. 43-1101, as amended by Sess. Laws, 1935, chap. 147.)

9. Evidence did not support finding of Industrial Accident Board that compensation claimant was not deceased employee's widow, and did not justify award of $1,000 to the state on ground that employee left no dependents. (I. C. A., secs. 31-201, 31-203, and sec. 43-1101, as amended by Sess. Laws, 1935, chap. 147.)

APPEAL from the Industrial Accident Board.

Proceedings under Workmen's Compensation Act. From an order denying claimant Laverne Mauldin compensation and awarding the State of Idaho $ 1,000 under the provisions of section 43-1101, I. C. A., and amendatory acts, Laverne Mauldin appeals. Reversed and remanded, with instructions to enter an award in favor of appellant.

Reversed and remanded, with instructions. Costs to appellant. Petition for rehearing denied.

Robert E. Brown and Eugene S. Ware, for Appellant.

There must be competent and substantial evidence to support the findings of the Industrial Accident Board, and if the evidence does not support the findings, as a matter of law the findings should be set aside and an independent award entered. (In re Larson, 48 Idaho 136, 279 P. 1087; In re Hillhouse, 46 Idaho 730, 271 P. 459; Burchett v. Anaconda Copper Min. Co., 48 Idaho 524, 283 P. 515; Ybaibarriaga v. Farmer, 39 Idaho 361, 228 P. 227.)

Idaho, by statutes and by decisions, recognizes the validity of common law marriages. (Secs. 31-201, 31-203, I. C. A.; Huff v. Huff, 20 Idaho 450, 118 P. 1080; Smith v. Smith, 32 Idaho 478, 185 P. 67; Estate of Tormey, 44 Idaho 299, 256 P. 535.)

Consent of the parties together with mutual assumption of marital rights, duties and obligations constitutes a marriage without solemnization. (Sec. 32-201, I. C. A.; Huff v. Huff, supra; White v. White, 82 Cal. 427, 23 P. 276, 7 L. R. A. 799; In re Ruffino's Estate, 116 Cal. 304, 48 P. 127; Kilburn v. Kilburn, 89 Cal. 46, 26 P. 636, 23 Am. St. 447; People v. Beevers, 99 Cal. 286, 33 P. 844; annotation 39 A. L. R. 538; 18 R. C. L., sec. 57, p. 428.)

The law presumes a marriage to be valid and the burden of proof is upon the contestant to show by clear, cogent and satisfactory evidence the invalidity of the marriage or any existing impediments relied upon. (Huff v. Huff, supra; Smith v. Smith, supra; Estate of Tormey, supra; In re Perry's Estate, 58 Cal.App. 420, 208 P. 987; Haywood v. Nichols, 99 Kan. 138, 160 P. 982; 18 R. C. L., secs. 40, 41, p. 416.)

H. J. Hull, for Respondent Sunshine Mining Company.

The presumption of marriage arising from cohabitation and the presumption that a former impediment has been removed are based upon public policy and natural equity and their purpose is to protect a person who has innocently and in good faith entered into a marriage with a person ineligible to marry. The benefit of the presumption is not available to the ineligible party to the marriage, who necessarily has the proof of the actual facts in his or her possession. ( Huff v. Huff, 20 Idaho 450, 118 P. 1080; Smith v. Smith, 32 Idaho 478, 185 P. 67; In re Danikas Estate, 76 Colo. 191, 230 P. 608.)

J. W. Taylor, Attorney General, and R. W. Beckwith, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent State.

Assignments of error must be specific, as general assignments will not present questions for review. (Supreme Court Rules, 74-a and 42; art. 5, sec. 9, Idaho Const. (p. 498, 1937 Sess. Laws); chap. 70, 1939 Session Laws; chap. 175, 1935 Session Laws; Pierstorff v. Gray's Auto Shop, 58 Idaho 438, 74 P.2d 171; Mundell v. Swedlund, 58 Idaho 209, 71 P.2d 434; Oregon etc. R. R. Co. v. Ballantyne, 48 Idaho 351, 282 P. 80.)

Habit must be coupled with reputation which must be a holding out generally to the whole world the relationship of man and wife, in order to constitute a common-law marriage, and where woman did not take man's name but continued to be known as hitherto, testimony the couple lived as man and wife held not to establish a common-law marriage. (18 R. C. L. 430, sec. 58; 38 C. J. 1321-1325, sec. 98; In re Foley's Estate, 76 Colo. 286, 230 P. 618.)

BUDGE, J. Ailshie, C. J., and Givens, Morgan and Holden, JJ., concur.

OPINION

BUDGE, J.

June 24, 1938, John Lewis Mauldin, employed at the mining property of respondent Sunshine Mining Company, received a personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment resulting in his death. Under the provisions of section 43-1101, I. C. A., as amended by chapter 147, 1935 Session Laws, the state auditor filed claim for $ 1,000, alleging deceased had no dependents. Appellant Laverne Mauldin also filed claim alleging she was the surviving widow of the deceased, which allegation was denied, this being the only issue presented to the board, the board's finding thereon being as follows:

"The claimant, Laverne Mauldin, claims to have been the wife of the said John L. Mauldin by virtue of an alleged common law marriage between herself and the said John L. Mauldin, but the Board expressly finds that the claimant has failed to prove such marriage and expressly finds that the said Laverne Mauldin was not the wife of the said John L. Mauldin at the time of his injury and death aforesaid."

Appellant's five specifications of error recited that "The Industrial Accident Board erred" "in entering its Findings of Fact" "V" and "VI," "in entering its Rulings of law 1" and "II" and "in entering its award in favor of the State of Idaho and disallowing the applicant's claim of dependency." Respondents urge that none of these specifications of error meet the requirements of the rules and decisions of this court as it cannot be determined from them wherein the findings, rulings or award are in error. The specifications of error however are thoroughly discussed in the body of appellant's brief (and likewise in respondents' briefs) and are supported by relevant authority and no difficulty is experienced in ascertaining appellant's position to be that there was no competent or substantial evidence before the board to support the findings and rulings specified and the award. This court will therefore not refuse to consider the appeal. (Rowe v Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 52 Idaho 649, 17 P.2d 352; Herrick v. Breier, 59 Idaho 171, 82 P.2d 90; Berg v. Carey, ...