Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1895-11-29
GROVES WILL VALID
Judge NCNaIIy Decides Against Hrs
BOlllngsWOrlb.
VERY STRONG LANGUAGE USED.
Cannot Brand Her Children With lille
gitimacy simply 10 Secure
Properly.

In the probate court this morning
Judge McNally handed down dcci,.
ion Ia the Dr.. Groves oa,o, which has
become locally famous by reason Of the
peculiar circumstances connected with
". II will be Temeu. boTed that DR..
Groves die1 leaving will 10 which he
bequeatnod most Of his property 10 tue
establishment Of hospital TO bear his
name. Its validity was cOntoa'od by
Mre. Henry Hollingsworth Of Sandy,
who sUt forth that she had married
the deceased when but fifteen years %
age; that she had received a divorce
from him which, after his death, che
discovered to her discontinue and re-
greet was not iegul, when TACT led her
10 the belief that sue was entitled 70 al
lUatt n portion VI his property. The
ull text Of Judge McNally's decision
Ia Ms follows
In tho Probate Cour! ,of salt Lake
County, UiAh Territory.
In tho matter of tho estate Of william
II. Groves, deceased. Decision on mo-
ton 10 dismiss petition,
Tho petitioner claims TO DO the widow
Of William n. Groves, deceased, aud
asks 10 have tho will sot ABIDE and hor-
Heli appointed Administrative OF che o..
tate, sLO also claims dover interest In
the roal estate " tho deceased. Before
uho can attack tho will or claim any In.
torost Ia tho estate she must establish nor
status ~ widow Of the deceased. IL APP
puars from tho evidence that tho poti-
Homer ltfl DE-. Groves nh,Ait two
months alter their marriage and never
lived with him AGAIN. that sho
applied for and obtained divorce fiom
tho probate court " salt Lake county In
November, 1868; thal sho married
HOury HOllingsworth November OH
1877, and has had ak children by him,
three Of whom are now living; that she
lived with Hollingsworlh as his VITO
twony-throo years, I'LL several months
after ID. Grovoz's dea.h, aud Is still llv.
ing At the Same place with him aud hor
Counsel for the executors move to
dlsmisH tho petition on tho ground
that tho facts proven constitute an
ostOppul, That tho petitioner, hnV-
ing obtained tho divorce aud taken
advantage " it, benefits by rcmarry-
ing, Is prooluded and estoppod from
denying The validity OF tho divorce
aud from claiming any Interest In the
estate OF tho deceased. The petitioners
counsel contend that she acted IN good
II
that therefore shO IL no. ostoppOi. Mum
erous authorities have been ci,cd ON both
sidc-, but no case has been presented
which supports tho position taken Dy the
petitioner.
IL is not necessary In deciding this mo-
ton TO determine whOther the decree OF
divorce In valid or not. Tho question IL
Whether the petitioner IL in position to
deny i.s validity. For thirty years she
failed 10 perform any martial duties TO-
wards tho deceased. When sha mar
RED HolllnggwOtlh she accepted tho
benefits OF the divorce aud con-
tinuol for tweuty.throo years, I'LL the
death OF Dr.. Groves, 10 enjoy ~ glvsu-
pigos. ono WHO accepts aud retains the
fruits OF u void Judgment cannot after
wards ropudiAto nor action aud take Rd-
vantage of ila inyalidlty, and there sopms
10 DO no reason why tie petitioners con.
due Ia thi. case should not produce just
as effective an ostoppel AZ II sho lad re-
ooiyod the proceeds OF void Judgment
for money. Tho Law presnmos that sh o
know the divorce was void, II indeed Il Is
void, aud the fact that she did not kno W
1t IN OF no consequence, unless 10 be- TO de-
tofmino tho question Of moral ob.iquity.
Although the analogy between accepting
tho fruits Of void Judgment AZ
law, aud accepting tho pecuniAry bene-
fits arising from n void decree OF
divorce may not DO perfect in all respects,
tho importance and Justice OF recognizing
an ostuppol in the latter ease may DO
far more woighly than Ia the former,
Tho Immediate parties are not the only
ones Interested. Tho children OF tho
petitioner and their father, rs well Us The
public, are profoundly Interested. Pub
lilo policy requires that, no far ~ may DO
consistent with fundamental principles
OF law, one who has attempted to profit
by u supposed divorce, aud has exercised
tho resulting privilege % r8marriago,
shall NOS, for tho nero purpose OF op-
tanning property, Do permitted to ropUdi-
ate her election aud nus demonstrate tho
invalidity of the second marriage there
by fixing her own status rs that Oi an
adulterCss, aud branding her children
with the stigma of LEGITIMACY. To
permit tho accomplishment Of such n
purpose would DO shocking 10 good
morals, to sound public policy, ana 70
the simplest principles Of turilCch So
says the supreme court Of Colorado, aud
Il is supported by long list OF Ihorl-
ties from other estates As well ~ by the
Supreme Cour. Of the UnllOd states, Be-
lieving In the sOuuduess OF those do
cisions, am constrained, In the interest
Vt Justice and morality, 10 decide that
this proceeding, which, II successful,
would result In tho dishonor OF the poli-
toner and hor innocent children, and
would cause pubic scandal aud Io-
proach, should hs dismissed. 10 Is
against public policy as well as priyalo
interest.
Tho petition Is therefore dismissed at
tho cost Of the petitioner.
J. NJ. Tanner, counsel for petitioner,
gave notice OF an appeal 10 tue district