The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-11-30

In the probate court yesterday, Judge
McNa1ly handed down his decision in
the matter of The estate of William
H. Groves, deceased, on the motion to
dismiss the petition of Fanny Wetzel
Groves ollingsworth, which is as fol-
lows:
In the Probate Court of Salt Lake
| County, Utah Territory.
In the Matter of the Estate of William
H. Groves, Deceased. Decision on
Motion to Dismiss Petition.
The petitioner claims to be the widow
of William H Groves, deceased, and
asks to have the will set aside and
herself appointed Administrative of the
estate; she also claims a dover inter-
est in the real estate of the deceased.
Before she can attack the will or claim
any interest ill., the estate she must es-
tablish her status as widow of the
deceased. 1t appears from the evidence
that the petitioner left DR.. Groves
about two months after their marriage
| and never lived with him again; that
she applied for and obtained a divorce
from the probate court Of Salt Lake
county in November, 1865; that she
married Henry Hollingsworth Novem-
Der 8, 1872. ana has had six children
by him, three of whom are now liv-
ing; that she lived with Hollingsworth
as his wife twenty-three years, till
several months after DR.. Groves death,
and is still living at the same place
with him and her children.
Counsel for the executors move to
dismiss the petition on the grounds
that the facts proven constitute an es-
toppel. That the petitioner, having OBJ
tanned
vantage of its benefits by remarrying,
is precluded and estopped from deny
ing the validity of the divorce and
from claiming any interest in the es-
tate of the deceased. The petitioners
counsel contend that she acted in good
falth, believing the divorce to be
valid, and that therefore she is not
estopped. Numerous authorities have
been cited on both sides, but no case
has been presented which supports the
position taken by the petitioner.
1t Is not necessary i'm deciding this
motion to determine whether the de-
cree OF divorce is valid or not. The
question is whether the petitioner is
in position to deny it's validity. For
thirty years She failed to perform any
marital duties towards the deceased.
When she married Hollingsworth she
accepted the benefits of the divorce
till the death of DIR. Groves, to euioy
Its advantages. One who accepts and
retains the fruits of a void Judgment
cannot afterwards repudiate her &C
ton and take advantage of it's invalid
lty, and there seems to be no reason
why the petitioners conduct in this
case should not produce just as eff
fectlVe an estoppel as if she had re-
celVed the proceeds of "a void Judgment
larry
knew the divorce was void, if indeed
IL is void, and the fact that she did
not know 1t is of no consequence, I'M
less 1t be to determine the question of
moral obliquity. Although the anal
ogy between accepting the fruits of a,
VOID judgment at law, and accepting
the pecun1ary benefits arising from a
VOID decree of divorce may not be per-
rect In all respects, the Importance and
Iusace OF recognizing an estoppel in
the latter case may be far more
weighty than in the former. The i'm
ineolate parties are not the only ones
interested. The children of the pc
tltloner and their father, as well as
the public, are profoundly interested
Fuphc policy requires that, so far
as may be consistent with fundamental
principles of law, one who has at
tempted to profit by a supposed divorce
80, -. ii.o cAelclSeu the resulting priVi-
lege OF remarrying, shall not, for the
mere purpose of obtaining propertv
be permitted to repudiate her election
ana thus demonstrate the invaliditv of
the second marriage, thereby fixing her
own status as that of an ad11lteress
and branding her children with the
Stigma of illegitimacy To permit tbe
accomplishment of such n11rnose
would be Shocking to good morals tn
sound policy and to the SIMPLEST n,,;n-
clples of Justice So saws the su-
preme court of Colorado, and it is sim
ported by long list of authorities
from other states, as we'll as bv tha
supreme court of the United States
Beiievlng in the soundness of those
decisions, L am constrained. in the in
terests of justice and morality. To do
cue mat this proceeding, which. if suc-
essslul' would result in the dishonor of
the petitioner and her innocent
cnlioren' and would cause public scan
Qal ana reproach, should be dismissed
IL is against public policy as we'll a.
private interest. do
Inc petition is therefore dismissed az
the cost of the petitioner.
motlon of appeal was given nv tho
attorneys for petitioner.
Estate of Morgan Williams.
December 5, 1895. at 10 o'clocl, -,
was set as time for hearing netitinn
LOT order to sell personal pronertv
water scrip valued at S749. ID of tho
estate OF Morgan Williams. deceased