Taylor v. Taylor
| Decision Date | 08 November 1897 |
| Citation | 10 Colo.App. 303,50 P. 1049 |
| Parties | TAYLOR v. TAYLOR. |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Error to district court, Lake county.
Action by Parnecy Taylor against George E. Taylor. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.
A.J Sterling and A.S. Blake, for plaintiff in error.
Charles Cavender and John A. Ewing, for defendant in error.
This was an action for divorce and alimony, instituted by the plaintiff in error. It is admitted that no marriage ceremony was performed, and that there was no compliance had or attempted with the statutory provisions as to the solemnization of marriage. It was alleged in the complaint and attempted to be shown, that a marriage was created by a verbal agreement of the parties, followed by cohabitation for a period of about four years, and general repute. All material allegations were denied by a verified answer. The issues were found in favor of the defendant, and judgment rendered dismissing the bill.
This case was before this court heretofore, on an application for alimony pendente lite, and in the course of its opinion denying the application the court said: "We are unable to discover errors which leave the impression that they are of sufficient importance to compel a reversal of the judgment, unless we accept counsel's proposition that the judgment is not supported by the evidence." Taylor v Taylor, 7 Colo.App. 549, 44 P. 675. We still adhere to the same views, and hence the only question to be now considered is whether there was sufficient evidence to support the judgment.
By the statutes of Colorado, marriage is declared to be a civil contract; and there is only one essential requirement to its validity, between parties capable of contracting, viz. the consent of the parties. There are certain statutory provisions as to license, certificates, record, and authority to perform the marriage ceremony, etc.; but nowhere is a marriage declared to be void because it was not contracted in accordance with these provisions, or was contracted in violation of them. It follows, therefore, that a marriage contract, between parties of contracting capacity, which possesses the one essential prerequisite, may be valid although no provision of the statute as to its solemnization may have been followed, or attempted to have been followed. In other words, in this state a marriage simply by agreement of the parties, followed by cohabitation as husband and wife, and such other attendant circumstances as are necessary to constitute what is termed a "common-law marriage," may be valid and binding. Does the evidence in this case show that such a marriage was contracted between the parties? The great weight of authority is that the contract alone is not sufficient, unless it is followed by its consummation; that is, by cohabitation as husband and wife. It is also agreed that in cases where the contract or agreement is denied, and cannot be shown, its existence may be proven by, and presumed from, evidence of cohabitation as husband and wife, and general repute. "Cohabitation," as here used, means something more than sexual intercourse. Bouvier defines "cohabit" to be "to live together in the same house, claiming to be married." Webster defines "cohabitation" as "the act or state of dwelling together, or in the same place with another." "It is not a sojourn, nor a habit of visiting, nor even a remaining with for a time.
None of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
LaFleur v. Pyfer
...simply by agreement of the parties, followed by cohabitation as husband and wife, ... may be valid and binding." Taylor v. Taylor , 10 Colo.App. 303, 50 P. 1049, 1049 (1897).¶22 As with statutory marriage, Colorado historically imposed restrictions on common law marriage that were later dee......
-
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Johnson
...that the asserted marriage is invalid. Mauldin v. Sunshine Mining Co., supra; see also, Jeanes v. Jeanes, supra ; Taylor v. Taylor, 10 Colo.App. 303, 50 P. 1049 (1897); Miller v. Sutherland, 131 Mont. 175, 309 P.2d 322 In the first instance, our decision is governed by statute. The pertinen......
-
Wadsworth v. Brigham
...Marriage may not be proven by partial or divided reputation. In re Boyington's Estate, 157 Iowa, 467, 137 N.W. 949; Taylor v. Taylor, 10 Colo. App. 303, 50 P. 1049; State v. Wilson, 5 Pen. (Del.) 77, 62 A. Eldred v. Eldred, 97 Va. 606, 34 S.E. 477; Weidenhoft v. Primm, 16 Wyo. 340, 94 P. 45......
-
Bivians' Estate, In re
...and wife. Graham v. Graham, 130 Colo. 225, 274 P.2d 605 (1954); Radovich v. Radovich, 84 Colo. 250, 269 P.22 (1928); Taylor v. Taylor, 10 Colo.App. 303, 50 P. 1049 (1897). See also Common-Law Marriage [Colorado], 31 Dicta 451 As explained further in Graham, quoting Taylor: [T]he contract al......
-
Common Law Marriage in Colorado
...agreement.(fn15) NOTES _____________________ Footnotes: 1. Graham v. Graham, 130 Colo. 225, 274 P.2d 605 (1954); Taylor v. Taylor, 10 Colo.App. 303, 50 P. 1049 (1897). 2. People v. Lucero, 707 P.2d 1040 (Colo.App. 1985); Smith v. People, 64 Colo. 290, 170 P. 959 (1918). 3. Radovich v. Radov......
-
Tcl - the Common Law Spouse in Colorado Estate Administration - September 2006 - Trust and Estate Law
...NOTES 1. CRS § 14-2-109. 2. 52 Am.Jur.2d Marriage § 45; McChesney v. Johnson, 79 S.W.2d 658 (Tex.Civ.App. 1935). 3. Taylor v. Taylor, 10 Colo.App. 303 (1897). 4. Klipfel's Estate v. Klipfel, 92 P. 26 (Colo. 1907). See also In re Marriage of J.M.H. and Rouse, __ P.3d __, 2006 WL 1643211 (Col......
-
Back to the Future? a Centennial Look at Family Law
...not come-in the last hundred years or so. Notes 1. Dye v. Dye, 48 P. 313, 9 Colo.App. 320 (1897). 2. Taylor v. Taylor, 50 P. 1049, 10 Colo.App. 303 3. Id. at 1050. 4. Eickhoff v. Eickhoff, 68 P. 237, 29 Colo. 295 (1902). 5. McKercher v. Green, 58 P. 406, 13 Colo. App. 270 (1899). 6. Cairns ......