Skinner v. Skinner

• Court: New York Supreme Court
• Citation: Skinner v. Skinner, 4 Misc.2d 1013, 150 N.Y.S.2d 739 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1956)
• Decision Date: 07 March 1956
• Parties: Eloise R. SKINNER, Plaintiff, v. William Jaxson SKINNER and Barbara Scoon, Defendants.

Page 739

150 N.Y.S.2d 739

4 Misc.2d 1013

Eloise R. SKINNER, Plaintiff, v. William Jaxson SKINNER and Barbara Scoon, Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County, Part IX.

March 7, 1956.

Albert Holland, New York City, for plaintiff.

No appearance for defendants.

PARELLA, Acting Supreme Court Justice.

An inquest to declare the status of a marriage was taken before me without a jury. The evidence discloses that the plaintiff and defendant William Jaxson Skinner were married in a church ceremony on October 9, 1948, in the Borough of the Bronx, City of New York. Less than five months later, a divorce granted to a former wife of defendant Skinner in Virginia became final. However, plaintiff did not learn of this impediment to their marriage until after the birth of their child. In July of 1950, plaintiff and defendant Skinner visited in Washington, D. C., and in August of 1953 they visited in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, staying in the latter place for about three weeks and in the former for about a month. In June of 1955, defendant Skinner and defendant Barbara Scoon intermarried. Neither the plaintiff nor defendant Skinner at any time ever had the marriage dissolved between them. During all of these times and up to the separation between them in 1954, the evidence establishes that plaintiff and defendant Skinner held themselves out and conducted themselves as husband and wife in New York, Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia. They owned cars and acquired a home and furnishings in this state, title to the real estate being taken in the name of defendant Skinner and plaintiff, his wife. They attended church and social functions, registered at lodgings as man and wife, and generally were considered as husband and wife by all who knew them, including defendant Barbara Scoon, at all of the times and in all of the places mentioned.

Neither in this state, in the District of Columbia, nor in the State of Pennsylvania, can the ceremonial marriage between the plaintiff and defendant Skinner be considered valid, the latter having at that time a living spouse from whom no valid divorce had been finally obtained. However, when the impediment to the marriage was subsequently removed, a common-law marriage between plaintiff and defendant Skinner arose both in the District of Columbia and in the State of Pennsylvania. In the District of Columbia the court, in the case of Thomas v. Murphy, 71 App.D.C. 69, 107 F.2d 268, 269, stated: 'It has been widely held that the removal of an impediment while parties continue to live together as husband and wife gives rise to a common-law marriage'. See also Hoage v. Murch Bros. Const. Co., 60 App.D.C. 218, 50 F.2d 983, as to the essentials of a common-law marriage therein. While in the State of Pennsylvania there is a presumption of continuance as to a relation illicit in its inception, nevertheless, it does not apply to cases where in good faith the parties continue to live...