Sanders v. Industrial Commission

• Decision Date: 26 November 1924
• Docket Number: 4187
• Citation: 230 P. 1026,64 Utah 372
• Court: Utah Supreme Court
• Parties: SANDERS v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al

230 P. 1026

64 Utah 372

SANDERS v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al

No. 4187

Supreme Court of Utah

November 26, 1924

Proceedings by Ruby Clark Sanders under the Industrial Act for compensation for the death of O. R. Sanders, opposed by the Utah Fuel Company, employer. The Industrial Commission denied compensation, and claimant brings proceedings for review.

AFFIRMED.

L. A McGee, of Price, for plaintiff.

Harvey H. Cluff, Atty. Gen., and J. Robert Robinson, Asst. Atty Gen., for Industrial Commission.

Ferdinand Erickson, of Salt Lake City, for Utah Fuel Co.

WEBER, C. J. GIDEON, FRICK, and CHERRY, JJ., and ERICKSON, District Judge, concur. THURMAN, J., did not participate.

OPINION

WEBER, C. J.

O. R. Sanders was fatally injured in the explosion of Castlegate mine No. 2, March 8, 1924. Thereafter Ruby Clark Sanders, claiming to be the widow of deceased, applied were had before the Commission, which denied the application for compensation, for the reason that the applicant was not the widow of the deceased. An application for rehearing having been denied, the proceedings were in due time brought here for review.

It is undisputed that Sanders was killed by reason of an accident arising out of or in the course of his employment while regularly employed by the Utah Fuel Company at Castlegate, Utah. It is also undisputed that the applicant and Sam Saris were divorced in 1923. Certified copies of findings of fact, conclusions of law, and decree in such divorce action are in the record. The decree is in the usual form, containing a provision that it shall not become absolute until the expiration of six months from date of the entry thereof, April 25, 1923.

The applicant introduced in evidence a marriage certificate issued at Evanston, Wyoming, June 16, 1923, evidencing a pretended marriage between O. R. Sanders and Ruby Saris on the last-named date; applicant and Sanders having gone to Evanston for the purpose of being married. Immediately after the ceremony they returned to Castlegate, where they resided as, and claimed to be, husband and wife up to the time of the death of Sanders.

The principal question is whether the Wyoming marriage was void or merely voidable in this state. Section 3001, Comp. Laws Utah 1917, is as follows:

"If, after the hearing of any divorce cause, the court shall be of the opinion that the divorce ought to be granted to either person, a decree shall be entered granting to such person a divorce; but the said decree shall specifically provide that it shall not become absolute until the expiration of six months from the date of its entry."

Section 3002:

"The decree of divorce shall become absolute after the expiration of six months from the entry thereof, unless proceedings for a review are pending, or the court before the expiration of said period for sufficient cause, upon its own motion or upon the application of any party, whether interested or not, otherwise orders."

Section 3003:

"It shall be unlawful for either party to a divorce proceeding whose marriage is dissolved by the final decree provided for by § 3002, to marry any person other than the husband or wife from whom the divorce was granted, within the period allowed for an appeal from such final decree under the code of civil procedure, and if an appeal from such final decree be taken, until after the affirmance of such decree; and any marriage contracted in violation of the provisions of this section shall be null and void."

The statute is clear and plain. There is nothing to interpret, nothing to construe. "* * * Any marriage contracted in violation of the provisions of this section shall be null and void." As stated in 9 R. C. L. p. 442:

"The interlocutory judgment or decree does not itself dissolve the marriage relation. The final judgment alone dissolves the marriage, restores the parties to the status of single persons, and permits each to marry again."

Ruby Clark Sanders had an undivorced husband living at the time of the pretended marriage ceremony. Again the statute declares the pretended marriage void. Section 2967, Comp. Laws Utah 1917, provides:

"Marriages prohibited and declared void: * * * 2. When there is a husband or wife living from whom the person marrying has not been divorced; (3). When not solemnized by an authorized person, except as...