Peirce v. Peirce

• Decision Date: 29 November 1893
• Citation: 35 N.E. 462,160 Mass. 216
• Parties: PEIRCE v. PEIRCE.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

160 Mass. 216

35 N.E. 462

PEIRCE v. PEIRCE.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Plymouth.

November 29, 1893

COUNSEL

Lemuel

Le B. Holmes and Eliot D. Stetson, for libelant.

OPINION

FIELD, C.J.

In this case the libelant, when she was in due form married to Flagg, knew that Peirce, her husband, was alive, and that the bonds of matrimony between herself and Peirce had not been dissolved by a divorce. She, in good faith, consulted a clergyman of good standing, who informed her that her marriage with Peirce had "run out," and that she had "a perfect legal right to get married;" and, believing this to be true, she was married to Flagg. The case discloses no mistake of fact on the part of the libelant, but a mistake of law; and, in accordance with our decisions, the justice who heard the libel rightly ordered it to be dismissed. Darrow v. Darrow, (Suffolk, June, 1893,) 34 N.E. 270; Pratt v. Pratt, 157 Mass. 503, 32 N.E. 747; Whippen v. Whippen, 147 Mass. 294, 17 N.E. 644; Moors v. Moors, 121 Mass. 232. Decree affirmed.