Peet v. Peet

• Citation: 52 Mich. 464,18 N.W. 220
• Court: Supreme Court of Michigan
• Decision Date: 23 January 1884
• Parties: PEET v. PEET and others.

18 N.W. 220

52 Mich. 464

PEET v. PEET and others.

Supreme Court of Michigan

January 23, 1884

An actual ceremony of marriage is not essential to the establishment of the relation of husband and wife; it is sufficient that the parties, no impediments existing, consent to take each other as husband and wife and cohabit together as such.

A finding that a man and woman lived together for 20 years and had 13 children is equivalent to a finding of the fact of marriage. Upon doubtful facts the court ought to presume a lawful marriage rather than a notorious act of immorality.

Error to Clinton.

A. Stout, for appellant.

O.W. Barker, for defendant.

COOLEY, C.J.

Mary Peet, claiming to be the widow of Lucius H. Peet, late of Clinton county, deceased, filed in the probate court for that county, where his estate was being administered, a claim to an allowance as such widow. The heirs contested her claim upon the ground that she was never legally married to the decedent. The probate court made the allowance prayed for and the heirs appealed.

In the circuit court the judge heard the case without the assistance of a jury, and made findings of the facts. From these findings he concluded, as matter of law, that the claimant was not the widow of the decedent, and gave judgment against her. The case is brought to this court by writ of error.

The second of the judge's findings of fact is as follows "Mary Peet, this claimant, and Lucius H. Peet were married February 28, 1858, and lived and cohabited together as husband and wife, until some time in November, 1880, when Lucius H. Peet died. In this case there was an actual marriage ceremony, according to the laws of this state." This finding, it will be seen, makes out an apparent right in the claimant to the allowance asked for, and we have only to see whether in the other findings there is anything to overcome this prima facie right.

The other findings are as follows: "David and Deborah Belcher lived together as husband and wife, previous to 1847 or 1848, for about twenty years, and had thirteen children and ceased entirely from living together in 1847 or 1848, he David Belcher, going away from Deborah sometimes and coming back when he wished, there being no evidence, however, that such absences were intended to be a separation, or anything more than occasional absences from home. They had some trouble between one another while living together as husband and wife. The reputation as to their being husband and wife being divided, no actual marriage ceremony is shown between David and Deborah Belcher. David Belcher died in 1860. Lucius H. Peet and Deborah Belcher were married in April 1855, and lived together as husband and wife about two and one-half years. In this case there was an actual marriage ceremony, according to the laws of this state. Deborah Belcher was living at the time of the marriage of Lucius H. Peet and Mary Peet."

These are the facts from which the circuit judge deduced the conclusion of law that the claimant was never legally married to the decedent. We can not' assent to this conclusion. The marriage of the claimant was indisputably legal, unless Lucius H. Peet had at the time of its solemnization a lawful wife living. He had gone through the forms of marriage with Deborah Belcher, but after a time had abandoned her, and it is inferable that he did so because he had become convinced she had in David Belcher a lawful husband living. If she had, he was justified in leaving her, and in entering into marriage relations with the claimant. The whole case, therefore, turns upon the question whether it appears that David and Deborah Belcher were husband and wife. It is not shown that any marriage ceremony ever took place between them, neither is the contrary proved; there is simply an absence of any evidence...