Robertson v. Robertson, 6 Div. 783
| Decision Date | 13 January 1955 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 783 |
| Citation | 77 So.2d 373,262 Ala. 114 |
| Parties | James W. ROBERTSON v. Faye ROBERTSON. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
A. L. Sapp, Cullman, for appellant.
Julian Bland, Cullman, for appellee.
Appeal from a decree denying relief to complainant and dismissing his bill to annul his marriage after a hearing on the merits before the circuit court, in equity.
The complainant, individually and by his father as next friend, sought to have the court annul the marriage between him and respondent, alleging in his bill that he did not know what he was doing when he married respondent; that he was highly excited and nervous and unable to understand the proceedings; that he was forced to marry the respondent; that while he was participating in the marriage ceremony he thought he was being tried under an affidavit and warrant out of the Justice of the Peace Court charging him with bastardy; that the marriage had not been consummated by cohabitation after the ceremony; that at the time of the marriage he was 19 years of age and the respondent was 18. Respondent demurred to the bill, demurrer was overruled, answer was filed and the issues tried. The court was convinced from the evidence that complainant was the father of respondent's child, denied the relief prayed for and dismissed the bill.
Appellant assigns as error:
We see no reason to set out the evidence in detail. There is no question or contention that the marriage was not solemnized in accordance with out statutes. The evidence came far short of proving appellant's insanity or that he did not know what he was doing, or that he was unable to understand what was happening when the marriage ceremony was being performed. The preponderance of the evidence was to the contrary. There was no evidence that he was forced to marry or that any threat of bodily harm was made before or at the time of the marriage to force him to marry respondent. The case of Kelley v. Kelley, 206 Ala. 334, 89 So. 508, holds that the mere fact that a husband, who has seduced his wife prior to the marriage ceremony, feared bodily harm if he did not marry the seduced girl, did not warrant the annulment of the marriage on grounds of duress, in the absence of proof as to actual threats of bodily harm, and that case is followed in Gwin v. Gwin, 219 Ala. 552, 122 So. 648.
The marriage took place in the probate office in Cullman County in the presence of several witnesses and the evidence is overwhelming that complainant was aware that he was being married, that he had requested that the ceremony be performed and that he was consenting...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marriage of Burnside, In re
...at Jefferson City. A ceremonial marriage is valid notwithstanding that it is not consummated by coition. Robertson v. Robertson, 262 Ala. 114, 77 So.2d 373, 374 (1955); Berdikas v. Berdikas, 54 Del. 297, 178 A.2d 468, 469-70 (Super.1962) ; Mitchell v. Mitchell, 136 Me. 406, 11 A.2d 898, 906......
-
Adams v. Boan
...this Court did not rule that such a requirement invalidated the common law marriage. Moreover, this Court held in Robertson v. Robertson, 262 Ala. 114, 77 So.2d 373 (1955), that § 30-1-5 is merely directory and that failure to adhere to its provisions is not grounds for annulling a marriage......
-
Anderson v. Anderson
...upon cohabitation for a period of time, but such contract, like other contracts, is complete when made.' It was held in Robertson v. Robertson, 262 Ala. 114, 77 So.2d 373, that the fact that parties did not live together after marriage was unavailable as evidence in a suit to annul a marria......