Reaves v. Reaves

• Decision Date: 07 June 1905
• Citation: 82 P. 490,15 Okla. 240,1905 OK 32
• Parties: REAVES v. REAVES [*]
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

82 P. 490

15 Okla. 240, 1905 OK 32

REAVES v. REAVES ^[*]

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

June 7, 1905

Syllabus by the Court.

Where the facts show that on the 25th day of June, 1890, in the territory of Oklahoma, parties competent to contract marriage entered into an agreement with each other that they would be husband and wife to each other, and immediately began living together and cohabiting with each other as husband and wife and holding out to the world that the relation of husband and wife existed, the question of whether or not a common-law marriage existed by such acts would be governed by the statutes of Nebraska, which were in force in this territory at that time, and the facts above stated would constitute a common-law marriage under the laws of Nebraska notwithstanding the fact that the same was not solemnized in accordance with the provisions of the statute, or that no officer authorized to consummate marriage, or any minister of the gospel, performed a ceremony of marriage.

Marriage in the legal sense is a civil contract, and it is not indispensable that a clergyman should be present to authorize and confirm the contract in order to give validity to the marriage.

Statutes regulating marriage are usually directory merely, and, when such statutes do not expressly prohibit or forbid other forms of marriages, a common-law marriage, consummated in accordance with the rules of the common law, is valid.

Where a case is submitted to the court and a jury waived, the finding of fact by the court will not be disturbed, where there is competent evidence which reasonably tends to support the findings.

Error from District Court, Logan County; before Justice John H Burford.

This case originally arose in the probate court of Logan county on an application by the defendant in error, Frances A. Reaves, for letters of administration on the estate of H. H. Reaves, deceased, as his wife, and objections thereto by Robert S. Reaves, a brother of the deceased, on the grounds that she was not his wife. A decision was rendered by the probate court granting letters of administration to Frances A. Reaves. From that decision an appeal was taken to the district court. A jury was waived and the cause tried to the court. The decision of the probate court was affirmed, and letters of administration granted to Frances A. Reaves. Motion for new trial was filed within the statutory time, overruled by the court, exceptions saved, and the cause is brought here for review. Affirmed.

George W. Buckner and Cotteral & Hornor, for plaintiff in error.

Dale & Bierer and Adelbert Hughes, for defendant in error.

IRWIN J.

In this case, at the request of the attorneys for the plaintiff in error, the court made a finding of facts, which are as follows: "(1) On and prior to the 25th day of June, 1890, the deceased, H. H. Reaves, was an unmarried man, over the age of 21 years, and able and competent to contract marriage, and a resident of the city of Guthrie, Okl. (2) On and prior to the 25th day of June, 1890, the appellee, Frances A. Reaves, was a widow, unmarried, over the age of 18 years, and competent to contract marriage, and was a resident of Guthrie, Okl. (3) On the 25th day of June, 1890, H. H. Reaves and Frances A. Reaves were each competent to contract marriage, and did, at the said time, in the city of Guthrie, agree with each other that they would be husband and wife to each other, and did immediately begin living together and cohabiting together as married persons. (4) That said marriage relations were entered into with the mutual consent of both parties, and that they immediately assumed all of the marital rights and obligations, and uninterruptedly exercised the same until the death of H. H. Reaves. (5) That the said marriage was entered into by the said parties in good faith, they each believing that no form of ceremony was essential to the validity of their marriage, and their subsequent cohabitation and domestic relations was the result of said marriage. (6) That no marriage ceremony was ever performed, and no witness was present when said marriage agreement and relations were contracted. (7) That from the 25th day of June, 1890, to the death of H. H. Reaves, he and the said Frances A. Reaves lived together in the city of Guthrie and sustained the relations of husband and wife, and held themselves out to the world and to the public as husband and wife, as well as to their friends and relations. (8) That for a period of over 10 years, and up to the death of H. H. Reaves, the said H. H. Reaves acknowledged and recognized the said Frances A. Reaves as his wife. He wrote numerous letters to her at various times, and addressed said letters to her through the mails, as his wife. (9) That the said H. H. Reaves, on several occasions during his lifetime, executed mortgages upon real estate held jointly by him and his brother, Robert S. Reaves, and in said mortgages H. H. Reaves and Frances A. Reaves were designated as husband and wife, and she signed, acknowledged, and executed said instruments as the wife of H. H. Reaves, and the said Robert S. Reaves joined in the execution of said instruments, knowing said facts. (10) That H. H. Reaves treated Frances A. Reaves as his wife, introduced her to his friends and acquaintances as his wife, and, when traveling, went with her--went to hotels and registered as H. H. Reaves and wife. (11) That during the time said parties lived together as husband and wife, he partially supported and educated her children by a former marriage, and allowed them to live with him as one family. (12) That H. H. Reaves died intestate in the county of Logan, Okl., on the 9th day of May, 1902, leaving property subject to administration, and the said Frances A. Reaves is a competent person to be appointed as said administratrix of said estate."

Under this finding of facts it is apparent that on the 25th day of June, 1890, the defendant in error, Frances A. Reaves, and the deceased, H. H. Reaves, both being parties capable of performing a marriage contract, entered into an agreement whereby they were to be husband and wife to each other, and did immediately begin living together and cohabiting with each other as married persons. The first contention of plaintiff in error in this case is that the evidence failed to establish a marriage as set forth in the finding of facts. We have examined the case-made, and the evidence therein contained as having been taken before the district court, and we are not prepared to say that there is not evidence which reasonably tends to support the finding of facts of the district court; and under the well-recognized and oft-repeated rule of this court, where this is the fact, this court will not disturb a finding of facts.

But it is contended by plaintiff in error that there can be no such thing as a common-law marriage under the laws of this territory, without a celebration in the manner provided by statute; that when the statute points out the manner in which marriages shall be solemnized it precludes the possibility of any other sort of marriage being legal. But we think that this question of a common-law marriage does not come under the provisions of the laws of this territory, but rather under the provisions of the laws of Nebraska, as the organic act of this territory (section 11), approved by Congress May 2, 1890 (26 Stat. 87, c. 182), among other things, placed in operation in this territory the act of Nebraska with reference to marriages until the next meeting of the territorial Legislature. The meeting of the first territorial Legislature was in 1890. The agreement of marriage between the parties in this case was made at and prior to June 25 1890; this being within that period wherein by the act of Congress the laws of Nebraska were in force. Section 1 of the laws of Nebraska in regard to marriage (Comp. St. 1887, p. 504) reads as follows: "In law, marriage is considered as a civil contract, to which the consent of the parties capable of contracting is essential." Section 4 of this act provides for the qualifications of the parties and the manner of the performance of the marriage ceremony; but, so far as we can ascertain, this act nowhere provided that in the event no ceremony shall be performed the marriage shall be absolutely void. It is simply the evidence of marriage. This statute has been fully considered by the Supreme Court of that state. In Gibson v. Gibson, 24 Neb. 394, 39 N.W. 450, the court says: "It is regarded as settled by judicial authority, throughout the United States, that marriage, in the legal sense, is a civil contract; that it is not indispensable that a clergyman should be present to authorize and confirm, the contract, in order to give validity to the marriage." In Haggin v. Haggin, 35 Neb. 375, 53 N.W. 209, it appears that the defendant took the plaintiff into the state of Kansas, before a person who pretended to be, but was not, a qualified clergyman, and had a fraudulent ceremony of marriage performed. The court, in holding this good as a common-law marriage, said: "In the absence of allegations to the contrary, the laws of Kansas in relation to marriage will be presumed to be the same as the laws of this state. The practice of Great Britian, under the ecclesiastical laws or rules, appears to be the announcement in a particular church of the intended marriage; the purpose being to give all persons who may be opposed to the marriage an opportunity to present themselves and offer their objections, before it is too late. The principal object is to prevent ill-advised and clandestine marriages. The statute requiring license is designed to take the place of publication of banns, and the laws as to both are directory, and the failure to observe them does not...