Peyton v. Peyton

• Decision Date: 11 April 1902
• Citation: 28 Wash. 278,68 P. 757
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: PEYTON v. PEYTON.

68 P. 757

28 Wash. 278

PEYTON v. PEYTON.

Supreme Court of Washington

April 11, 1902

Appeal from superior court, Spokane county; William E. Richardson Judge.

Action by Helen M. Peyton against Isaac N. Peyton to set aside a decree of divorce and for separate maintenance. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Robertson Miller & Rosenhaupt, H. P. Bennett, Jr., and Barnes &amp Latimer, for appellant.

Graves & Graves and Forster & Wakefield, for respondent.

HADLEY J.

Appellant and respondent were married in Illinois in the year 1869. They began life together as husband and wife in Danville, Ill., where they resided for about two years after their marriage. They then removed to Kansas, where they remained for a short time, and later went to Colorado, where they continued to reside until 1878. During the latter year respondent closed out his affairs in Colorado preparatory to seeking a location elsewhere. It was arranged that appellant should return to Illinois on a visit, where, as she understood, she was to remain until respondent should select a new location, and that she would then go to the place so selected by her husband. On her trip from Colorado to Illinois, appellant was accompanied by her husband as far as the city of St. Louis, at which place they separated; the appellant proceeding on her journey, and the respondent remaining for a few days in St. Louis. They did not meet again until the year 1886. A few days after their separation in St. Louis, appellant received a letter from her husband written at the latter place, and not long after another written from New York City. The last-mentioned letter was written in November, 1878, and appellant did not again receive a letter from him for more than three years. Appellant was visiting friends at Champaign, Ill., immediately following her trip aforesaid; and the day before Christmas, 1878, she received a letter from respondent's brother, who resided at Danville, Ill., in which he informed her that her husband had left her with the intention of not living with her again as her husband. In due time appellant returned to Colorado, and resided in the city of Denver. After the lapse of some three years as aforesaid, she occasionally received letters from respondent, which were forwarded to her by respondent's brother, but which did not disclose the whereabouts of respondent. Meantime respondent had come to the then territory of Washington, and had located in Spokane county. He engaged in mercantile and other business, and was known in business and social circles as 'G. H. Morgan.' He was generally recognized in the community as an unmarried man, and was supposed to be a bachelor. He continued to do business in Spokane county, and had acquired some farm property, and also some real estate in what was then Spokane Falls. In 1885 he was living in the city of Spokane Falls, now Spokane. During that year he caused to be instituted against appellant a suit for divorce. The suit was brought in the name of Isaac N. Peyton, as plaintiff, in the district court for the Fourth judicial district of Washington Territory, holding terms at Goldendale, in klickitat county. Such proceedings were had in said cause that on the 17th day of October, 1885, a decree was entered therein which declared the marriage relation between appellant and respondent dissolved. The Honorable George Turner was the presiding judge of the said court, by whom the decree was entered. Judge Turner resided in Spokane at the time, and personally knew the plaintiff in that case,--the respondent here,--but knew him as G. H. Morgan, commonly called 'Colonel Morgan,' and did not know him as Isaac N. Peyton. Respondent at no time appeared before the said judge during the pendency of said cause. A default order was entered against appellant upon the motion of respondent's counsel, and by the same order Carroll B. Graves, a member of the bar, was appointed as referee to take the testimony, make findings of facts and conclusions of law, and report the same to the court. Respondent, together with other witnesses, appeared and testified before the referee, but respondent was not known to the referee as being the same person known as G. H. Morgan in Spokane. The referee reported the testimony in writing to the court, together with his findings and conclusions, to the effect that the allegations of the complaint were sustained, and that the respondent was entitled to a decree of divorce. Thereafter the court confirmed said findings and conclusions, and entered a decree as aforesaid. Respondent's attorneys in the divorce suit were Griffitts & Graves, of Spokane. The case was managed exclusively by Mr. Griffitts, of that firm. F. H. Graves, a member of the firm, knew that an action was pending in Klickitat county, entitled 'Isaac N. Peyton v. Helen M. Peyton,' and also knew that his partner had attended the trial thereof, but he did not know that the said Isaac N. Peyton was the same person whom he knew in Spokane as G. H. Morgan. It appears that the only persons in any way connected with the case, aside from respondent, who knew that the plaintiff therein was the same person known in Spokane as G. H. Morgan, were Mr. Griffitts, the attorney, two brothers of respondent, and a Mr. Bennett; the last three mentioned having been present at the time of the hearing before the referee, and some, if not all, of them having testified as witnesses. On the 4th day of November, 1885, following the date of the entry of the decree aforesaid, respondent contracted a marriage with Mrs. Victor A. Houghton, a widow who resided in Spokane. The marriage was contracted by respondent in the name of G. H. Morgan, and was formally celebrated on said date. The marriage ceremony was conducted by a clergyman in the presence of witnesses, and under authority of a marriage license theretofore duly issued. Mrs. Houghton at the time of the marriage believed respondent to be an unmarried man, and had no knowledge of the divorce proceedings heretofore mentioned. She also believed respondent's real name to be G. H. Morgan, and was in no way advised to the contrary. Immediately following said marriage, respondent and said Victor Houghton Peyton left Spokane for a trip to California. They sojourned in California for some months, having in view the benefit of the respondent's health; he not having been in vigorous health when they left Spokane. While they were still in California, the appellant, who had continued to reside in Denver, learned that the man known in Spokane as G. H. Morgan was in fact Isaac N. Peyton, and she thereupon came to Spokane; arriving there on the 16th day of March, 1886. Soon thereafter she caused to be instituted against respondent an action for divorce; the cause being entitled 'Helen M. Peyton v. I. N. Peyton, alias G. H. Morgan,' and was brought in the territorial court of the Fourth judicial district, for Spokane county. She also caused a warrant to be issued for the arrest of respondent on the charge of bigamy. About this time respondent and Victor Houghton Peyton returned to Spokane from California, when respondent was served with process in the said divorce suit, and was also placed under arrest on said charge of bigamy. Respondent immediately gave bail for his appearance in the criminal proceeding, and employed the firm of Houghton & Graves as his attorneys therein, and also in said divorce suit. Judge Houghton, of said firm, was a brother of the deceased husband of Victor Houghton Peyton, and his wife was also a sister of the latter. Said Victor Houghton Peyton, on learning of the above mentioned proceedings, and the facts thereby made known, was much distressed concerning her relations in the premises. She at once sought the advice of her said brother-in-law, and also of his law partner; desiring to know if she was or was not the lawful wife of respondent. It was her purpose not to live longer with respondent as his wife if she should be advised that she was not in fact his wife. She then learned for the first time of the former divorce proceedings in Klickitat county, and was advised by said attorneys that the decree entered therein had dissolved the marriage relation formerly existing between appellant and respondent, and that her marriage with respondent was a lawful one. Respondent about this time left Spokane, and went to Chicago, where he remained for some months; and said Victor Houghton Peyton, relying in good faith upon the aforesaid advice, joined respondent in Chicago. She continued to live with him as his wife, and in the month of August following a child was born to them. Meantime appellant had also filed a petition in the former divorce suit of Isaac N. Peyton v. Helen M. Peyton, which was brought in Klickitat county as aforesaid, in which petition she sought to vacate the decree rendered in that cause. The petition recited as grounds for the attack upon the decree that respondent was not a resident of Klickitat county at the time the suit was brought; that he had procured said decree by fraud, in that the allegations of his complaint were untrue, and the testimony given in support thereof was false; that he had concealed his whereabouts from her, and had adopted an assumed name for that purpose; that at the time of the institution of the suit he knew her place of residence, but that no service of process had been made upon her, and she had no notice of the institution of the suit, or the entry of the decree. At the time of the presentation of the petition to vacate said decree, she appeared in said cause, and moved for a change of venue thereof to Spokane county, which motion was granted, and the cause was transferred to Spokane county in the month of April, 1886, for further proceedings.

In...