State v. Bentley
| Decision Date | 05 February 1903 |
| Citation | 75 Vt. 163,53 A. 1068 |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. BENTLEY. |
Exceptions from Windsor county court; Haselton, Judge.
Milo E. Bentley was convicted of bigamy, and he brings exceptions. Affirmed.
The state proved the respondent's marriage at Bethel, Vt, to one Isabel Palmer, on December 28, 1901, and his previous marriage at Whitehall, N. Y., on March 23, 1899, to one Lenora Wetmore, who was still living. The respondent claimed that the Whitehall marriage was void, because within three years prior thereto a former wife, then a resident of Whitehall, had obtained a divorce from him in this state for a cause other than adultery, and the law of the state of New York prohibited the remarriage of the libelee in divorce proceedings within three years, as does the statute of this state. It was in support of this claim that the evidence referred to in the opinion was offered.
Argued before ROWELL, C. J., and TYLER, MUNSON, START, WATSON, and STAFFORD, JJ.
Charles P. Tarbell, State's Atty., for the State.
John J. Wilson, for respondent.
The respondent excepted to the exclusion of the statutory law of New York, with a decision of the highest court of that state construing the same, to the effect that a dissolution of marriage could be granted there only for the cause of adultery, and that, when a marriage is dissolved pursuant to such law, for that cause, the libelee shall not marry again, unless it be to the libelant, until the death of the libelant; and this is the sole question before us. It is sufficient for this case that the law of New York offered in evidence prohibits the subsequent marriage of a libelee only when the marriage has been dissolved under the provisions of that law. By express terms it has no application when the dissolution was granted in some other territorial jurisdiction. The evidence offered had no tendency, therefore, to show that the respondent's marriage at Whitehall, in the state of New York, was illegal, and it was properly excluded.
Judgment that there is no error in the proceedings, and that the respondent take nothing by his exceptions. Let execution be done.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Goldsmith
...1170, is to like effect. See, also, Dimpfel v. Wilson, 107 Md. 329, 68 A. 561, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1180, 15 Ann. Cas. 753; State v. Bentley, 75 Vt. 163, 53 A. 1068. Tennessee decisions relied upon by appellees (Newman v. Kimbrough, supra, and Pennegar v. State, 87 Tenn. 244, 10 S.W. 305, 2 ......
-
Hilda G. Wheelock v. Harry C. Wheelock
... ... February ... Term, 1931 ... Marriage---Validity---Marriage ... of Divorced Person in Another State To Avoid Law of Domicile ... as to Remarriage ... 1 ... General rule is that marriage valid where it is celebrated is ... Shattuck, 69 Vt. 403, 38 A. 81, 40 ... L.R.A. 428, 60 Am. St. Rep. 936; State v ... Richardson, 72 Vt. 49, 47 A. 103; State v ... Bentley, 75 Vt. 163, 53 A. 1068; Patterson's ... Admr. v. M. W. A., 89 Vt. 305, 316, 95 A. 692 ... To the ... general rule, however, ... ...
-
Wheelock v. Wheelock
...State v. Shattuck, 69 Vt. 403, 38 A. 81, 40 L. R. A. 428, 60 Am. St. Rep. 936; State v. Richardson, 72 Vt. 49, 47 A. 103; State v. Bentley, 75 Vt. 163, 53 A. 1008; Patterson's Adm'r v. M. W. A., 89 Vt. 305, 316, 95 A. To the general rule, however, there are two general exceptions which are ......
- Dufur v. Boston & M. R. Co.