Veazie v. Staples
| Decision Date | 27 May 1941 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | RALPH K. VEAZIE, administrator, v. EDGAR W. STAPLES& others. |
January 6, 1941.
Present: FIELD, C.
J., DONAHUE LUMMUS, COX, & RONAN, JJ.
Marriage and Divorce, Validity of marriage. Probate Court, Findings by judge, Appeal.
Upon the issue of fact before this court on an appeal from a decree by a judge of probate involving a finding tat a second ceremonial marriage of a man was valid, this court determined, contrary to that finding, that the weight of the reported evidence all of which of a substantial nature was contained in public records, documents and depositions, required a finding that a previous marriage of the man had not been dissolved at the time of the second marriage, and therefore that the second marriage was invalid.
PETITION, filed in the Probate Court for the county of Essex on December 4 1939, by the administrator of the estate of Fred W. Young late of Lynn, for partial distribution.
The case was heard by Costello, J.
P. F. Shanahan, (E.
J. Callahan of Minnesota with him,) for Edgar W.
Staples and others appellants.
J. H. Devine, (J.
F. Groden, & W.
Wadleigh of New Hampshire with him,) for Bessie A. Clarkson, appellee.
S. Parsons, for the petitioner, was in court but neither argued nor presented a brief.
LUMMUS, J. Fred W. Young of Lynn died intestate on February 10, 1939, leaving as heirs and next of kin only first cousins. The status of four of them is not questioned. The fifth, Bessie A. Clarkson, is admittedly the daughter, legitimate or illegitimate, of James Young, who was a brother of the father of the intestate, by a woman whose maiden name was Sarah F. Twombly. James Young as early as 1867 assumed the name of James Wright. The decisive question is whether Bessie A. Clarkson was a legitimate child of James Young alias Wright, and that depends upon whether her parents were lawfully married. The judge of probate decided in her favor, and entered a decree for distribution of the estate among five first cousins of whom she was one. The others appealed. The evidence is reported, but no express findings of subsidiary facts were made.
It appeared that James Young and Abigail A. Barker, both of Gilmanton, New Hampshire, were married there by a clergyman on March 31, 1842. In the early spring of 1856 they went West beyond the Mississippi River with their children. He deserted her there, and late in 1857 she and the children returned to Gilmanton. There was evidence by deposition that about 1859 James visited her in Gilmanton, seeking a reconciliation, and remained with her about a week. They never lived together afterwards. About 1861 she moved to Pittsfield, New Hampshire, where she lived until her death on April 21, 1912. There was evidence by deposition that in 1878 she obtained $1,000 from James, which she used to buy a house in Pittsfield.
On May 15, 1867, James Young, under the name of James Wright, describing himself as of Boston, Massachusetts, went through a ceremony of marriage at Dover, New Hampshire, with Sarah F. Twombly of Durham, New Hampshire. Where he had been since 1859 did not clearly appear. Nothing was said in the certificate of marriage as to any prior marriage. A son, now dead, was born to them on December 31, 1867. Some time later they moved to Jamaica, Long Island, where their daughter, now Bessie A. Clarkson, was born in 1874. About 1883 they came to Epping, New Hampshire. Epping is about eighteen miles from Pittsfield, where Abigail A. Young was living.
On February 6, 1885, Abigail A. Young filed in the Supreme
Court of New Hampshire a libel for divorce against James Young for alleged abandonment and alleged adultery with Sarah F. Twombly. He was served in hand with a summons on February 13, 1885. Soon afterwards a horse stepped on his foot, gangrene set in, and after three successive amputations of his leg he died on March 9, 1885. After his death the libel was dismissed upon the motion of the libellant.
On the day he died, James Young alias Wright made his will by which he gave one dollar each to his five children named Young and his two children named Wright, one of them being Bessie A. Clarkson, and the residue "to Sarah F. Wright," who was appointed executrix. This will was proved "in common form" on March 18, 1885. On the petition of Abigail A. Young, who claimed to be the widow, the case was reopened, but after hearing the will was again proved and allowed by the Probate Court on July 21, 1885.
On September 25, 1885, Abigail A. Young and her children filed a bill in equity in the Supreme Court of New Hampshire against Sarah F. Wright, alleging that the named plaintiff and not the defendant was the widow of James Young alias Wright, that the defendant held real estate under a secret trust for him, and that equitably it belonged to the plaintiffs. The defendant in her answer said: "that said Abigail is the widow of said deceased and the other complainants are his children and only heirs-at-law she does not know, and requires proof of these allegations in said bill." She denied any trust. She admitted "that the said James Wright occupied said first described land at the time of his death, but she says that he occupied the same with her, she understanding and believing herself to be the lawful wife of the said James during the time of such occupation."
Finally, on February 3, 1886, an agreement signed by counsel was filed in the Supreme Court of New Hampshire, dismissing the bill in equity without costs, dismissing an appeal from the decree of July 21, 1885, allowing the will, and affirming that decree.
Sarah F. Wright, as she was called, apparently continued to live in Epping until her death in 1922.
A ceremony of marriage has the technical effect, either of prima facie evidence of its validity, or of casting the burden of proof upon the party denying its validity. Vergnani v Guidetti, 308 Mass. 450 , 454, 455. But where there are two successive ceremonial marriages of the same man to different women, it is at least doubtful whether any technical effect is given to the second one by assuming the dissolution of the first one. Kelly v. Drew, 12 Allen,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lowell v. City of Boston
...in the town. We draw our own inferences from such evidence without a deference to those drawn by the trial judge. Veazie v. Staples, 309 Mass. 123, 127, 33 N.E.2d 262;Pitman v. Pitman, 314 Mass. 465, 475, 50 N.E.2d 69, 150 A.L.R. 509;First National Stores Inc. v. First National Liquor Co., ......
-
Eno v. Prime Mfg. Co.
...Harvey-Watts Co. v. Worcester Umbrella Co., 193 Mass. 138, 78 N.E. 886;Berry v. Kyes , 304 Mass. 56, 22 N.E.2d 622;Veazie v. Staples, 309 Mass. 123, 33 N.E.2d 262. The evidence of the experts was competent to explain the meaning of certain terms in the letters patent, but the construction o......
-
Pitman v. Pitman
...181 N.E. 720;Hopkins v. Hopkins, 287 Mass. 542, 192 N.E. 145, 95 A.L.R. 1286;Berry v. Kyes, 304 Mass. 56, 22 N.E.2d 622;Veazie v. Staples, 309 Mass. 123, 33 N.E.2d 262. Pitman could not assign to his former wife any interest in the trust fund over which he had a special power of appointment......
-
Cote-Whitacre v. Dept. of Public Health
...belief that former marriage was terminated). See also ante at note 10 (Spina, J., concurring) (citing cases). Cf. Veazie v. Staples, 309 Mass. 123, 126, 33 N.E.2d 262 (1941) ("A ceremony of marriage has the technical effect, either of prima facie evidence of its validity, or of casting the ......