Woodworth v. Woodworth

• Decision Date: 28 May 1930
• Citation: 271 Mass. 398,171 N.E. 431
• Parties: WOODWORTH v. WOODWORTH.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

271 Mass. 398

171 N.E. 431

WOODWORTH

v.WOODWORTH.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

May 28, 1930.

Appeal and Report from Probate Court, Middlesex County; John C. Leggat, Judge.

Petition by Gertrude S. Woodworth against James G. Woodworth, her husband, for the annulment of their marriage. Decree for libelant, and the guardian ad litem of the libelee appeals.

Reversed and remanded.

R. Woodworth, of Weston, for appellant.

T. F. Callahan and J. P. Feeney, both of Boston, for appellee.

CARROLL, J.

The libelant and libelee were married on June 6, 1925. They had known each other for about four years. On April 2, 1928, the petition of the wife for the annulment of the marriage, alleging that the libelee was incapable of contracting marriage because of insanity, was entered in the Probate Court, and on December 20, 1928, a decree was made declaring the marriage null and void. The guardian an litem of the libelee appealed. It did not appear that a stenographer was appointed to take the evidence and there is no report of the evidence. The judge made a report of his findings.

The guardian ad litem asked for this ruling of law: ‘Sanity is presumed until the contrary appears. The burden of proving the insanity, or such mental incapacity, of the respondent as to make the attempted marriage of the libelant and libelee void or voidable rests upon the libelant.’ The record does not show that this request was refused or granted, but the granting of the decree of annulment was in effect a denial of the request although it was not specifically passed on. American Congregational Association v. Abbot, 252 Mass. 535, 147 N. E. 895;Sullivan v. Roche, 257 Mass. 166, 169, 153 N. E. 549. ‘When a case is tried without a jury, the judge occupies a dual position; he is the magistrate required to lay down correctly the guiding principle of law; he is also the tribunal compelled to determine what the facts are. When these duties are nicely analyzed, he ought as judge to formulate the governing rules of law, and then, acting in place of the jury, he ought to follow these rules in deciding where the truth lies on conflicting evidence.’ John Hetherington & Sons, Ltd. v. William Firth Co., 210 Mass. 8, 18, 95 N. E. 961, 963.

An insane person is incapable of contracting marriage and under our statute the validity of the marriage ‘shall be raised only in a process instituted in the lifetime of both parties.’ G. L. c. 207, § 5. The libelee's request...