The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1902-03-13
Common Law Marriages.

Tn the famous case of Ofheld vs. Davis,
appealed from the Circuit Court OF
Greene county, the opinion handed down
by the Supreme Court aftirms the lower
courts decision and holds that common
law maQrriages entered into in Virginia
is invalid The question presented IN
this case for the first time before the
court is whether or not contract, II
proved entered into batween man ana
a woman, by which they mutually agreed
to become husband and wife without
any celebration and without license, con-
stitutes a valid marriage IN TINS state
and entities the woman to DOVER III -
@terest from the time at which the agree
ment is entered into. The OPINION was
written by Judge Cardwell-
The question arises on the petition
Of Sarah D. Ofield, appellant, filed IN a
@thancery suit pending in the CIRCUIT
Court of Greene county for the enforce
ment OF Judgment liens resting upon tne
lands Of J. F. Ofeld. in which she asserts
that she became the common law VIE
of Of1eld in 1865, and was regularly mar ls,
ried to him under license IN 1853. 'iis
ALLEGES the death of her husband ana
ria inns against his estate from the time
che became his common law wife. Inc
opinion says:
cit appears: that all the lands OF the
husband had. when appellants petltlon
was filed been sold in the creditors suit,
ercent a, very small portion; that the
land sold, and that unsold, was lnsui'i-
cient to pay the liens thereon. WHICH
prior in date to March. ls9' the cdte
on which the legal marriage looh piaeo
and long prior to April. 1860.
..If there was no valid marriage between
these narties prior to March .. 1873, then
Ike liens assorted in the creditors SUITS
vere paramount to appellants claim OF
dover She had no interest IN the s''lt,
and the Circuit Court rightly dismissed
her petition
further. Judge Cardwell says in the
opinion: when statute aan 1l,E " nv tno
INTERPRETATIONS, the one destructive OIL the
foundation of society and inimcal to the
reace, welfare and good order Of a. peo-.
1,1c. snd the other conducive to their Wei
fare and adding strength and durability
to the foundations of society, the latter.
we unl1esitatingly think, should be
adopted.''
Mrs. Meyer Retains Child.
case of considerable local interest
decided was that Of Meyer vs.. Meyer.
This case, in which DR. Otto Meyer sued
fer the custody Of his child, was affirmed,
ard the opinion Of Judge Minor, of the
law and Equity Court, sustained.
After the divorce of DR.. Meyer and his
wife the child was given into the latter.s
custody, which was allowed by q. suit
instituted by the father to secure 1t.
In the opinion written by. Judge Card
we'll the phases of the case are not gone
into but in conclusion he says: 1.-THE
learned Judge of the Law and Equity
Court has. upon the evidence, decTeed
that the welfare Of the child requires
that it be left in the custody of it's
mother; and after careful consideration
Of the record we are unable to say
that it is erroneous
In Favor of Richmond Man.
Another local case in which the opin-
ion of the Circuit Court of this city
was affirmed was that Of Moore and
Roger VS.. c. and H. Kaufman. Thet
opinion was rendered by Judge Whfttle
in favor Of Kaufman. The case in
volved construction of two clauses of the
bankrupt act.
TIL, Doyle Decree Affirmed.
Among the opinions handed down was
one in the case of Doyle against the Com
monwealth, affirming the judgment OF the
Corporation Court of the city Of Lynch
burg, in refusing a new trial. Edward
j. Doyle, plaintiff in error in the case.
was indicted in the Lynchburg court Tor
assaulting Maggie L. Coomes.
The jury found him not guilty of this
charge, but guilty Of assault and battery
and fixed his punishment at one year IN
Jail and a fine Of $1,000. Upon motion to
set this verdict aside, which was refused,
the case came to the Supreme Court. Inc