Palmer v. Palmer
| Decision Date | 01 December 1928 |
| Citation | 265 Mass. 242,163 N.E. 879 |
| Parties | PALMER v. PALMER. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Appeal and Report from Probate Court, Middlesex County; John C. Leggatt, Judge.
Libel for divorce by Percival L. Palmer against Evelyn Palmer. From a decree dismissing the libel, libelant appeals. On report of the judge of probate. Decree affirmed.
M. T. Silverstein, of Boston, for libelant.
The issue in this case is presented by the report of the judge of probate in the following language:
‘This is an uncontested libel for divorce for the cause of desertion. The parties were married in New Jersey on the 7th day of May, 1924. At that time the libelant had been a resident of New York since 1918. The libelee was a resident of New Jersey. The parties immediately thereafter lived in New York City for a period of three weeks. They then moved to Everett, in this [Middlesex] county, the libelant being transferred from New York by his employers, to work in their Boston office. The parties lived together in Everett until the 5th day of July, 1924, when the libelee utterly deserted the libelant and has continued such desertion. Upon this evidence alone I would have entered a decree nisi for the cause of desertion.
‘It appears, however, from the records of this court, divorce docket No. 459, that the libelant in this libel was the libelee in another libel, in which his then wife, Ella B. Palmer, was granted a divorce from him for the cause of desertion. The decree nisi is dated May 11, 1923. This decree became absolute in due course. In this libel Ella B. Palmer was described as of Everett, and the present libelant was described as of ‘New York City, New York, now commorant of Cambridge, in said Middlesex county.’ The libelee in that action appeared by counsel, did not contest the libel, and entered into an agreement concerning the care and custody of their two minor children and alimony. The provisions of this agreement were incorporated into the decree nisi.
‘The libelant in the present action now asks that he be granted a divorce for the desertion of his present wife for a period during which, in part at least, he was prohibited from remarrying by the provisions of G. L. c. 208, § 24.
G. L. c. 208, § 24, prohibits the party against whom a decree for divorce has been granted from marrying again for two years after the decree has become absolute. A marriage in Massachusetts in violation of this provision is void.
G. L. c. 207, § 10, declaring null and void a marriage in another jurisdiction by a person disabled or prohibited from contracting marriage in this commonwealth, does not apply because the statute is expressly limited to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Yarborough v. Yarborough 12 8212 13, 1933
...and credit); 42 Yale Law Journal, 1131. 6 See, also, Weidman v. Weidman, 274 Mass. 118, 174 N.E. 206, 76 A.L.R. 1359; Palmer v. Palmer, 265 Mass. 242, 163 N.E. 879; 42 Harvard Law Rev. 701. 7 That corporations cannot invoke the privileges and immunities clause does not explain the differenc......
-
Smith v. Smith
...'It is assumed that the marriage in New Jersey was valid, and must be so recognized in this commonwealth * * *.' Palmer v. Palmer, 265 Mass. 242, 244, 163 N.E. 879, 880. See, also, Commonwealth v. Lane, 113 Mass. 458; Phillips v. Madrid, 83 Me. 205, 22 A. 114, 12 L.R.A. 862; State v. Richar......
-
Vital v. Vital
...parties, just as though it had been entered into in this Commonwealth in violation of G.L.(Ter. Ed.) c. 208, § 24. See Palmer v. Palmer, 265 Mass. 242, 163 N.E. 879. We have discovered no case since the enactment of what is now G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 207, § 6, by St.1895, c. 427 (see R.L. c. 151,......
-
Vital v. Vital
...parties, just as though it had been entered into in this Commonwealth in violation of G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 208, Section 24. See Palmer v. Palmer, 265 Mass. 242 . have discovered no case since the enactment of what is now G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 207, Section 6, by St. 1895, c. 427 (see R. L. c. 1......