Evening star., 1927-05-02
COURT REVERSED
IN MARRIAGE CASE
Simmons Illegally Married, Is
Ruling of Justice Van
0rSdel.

! A marriage. void from the begin
| ming, does not need a judicial decree
/ and the court is without power to
( validate Il or in any respect to require
/ the parties to live together. or in any
| manner to recognize the validity OF
| the marriage,
The District Court OF Appeals 80
held today in an opinion by Justice
| Josiah A. Van Orsdel reversing n
| decision Of the District Supreme
Court which had denied an application
! Of Herbert Simmons to annul his
marriage TO Mrs. Irene Davis, whom
he married April 10, 1918, just one
month after she had been divorced
in Virginia.
The lower court found that the man
and woman were living together in
Washington at the time she applied
for a divorce from her former hus-
band. Henry T.. Davis, and that the
Virginia decree was procured by fraud.
1t also found that Simmons knew the
woman was married. Later the wife
brought suit for an absolute divorce
from simmons. Simmons then filed
d cross petition for the annulment OF
his marriage on the ground that she
had o living husband at the time.
In refusing him relief the lower
court said: ITO allow him under these
circumstances. to take advantage or
the void decree Of divorce obtained by
Irene Davis in order 10 avoid the con-
sequences of his marriage to her, oc-
curing about a month after the de
cree of divorce was entered, would he
to lend the aid Of the process and aO-
thority Of this court to conduct that is
Violative of plain principles of equity
and strike a blow at the integrity or
the marriage relation.
Justice Van Orsdel declared that in
a case of this sort, neither the princt-
pies of equity nor the integrity OF
the marriage relation are controlling
In a proceeding to annul a void mar
riage. especially where 1t is so declar..
ed by statute. the rule of equal
fault" and the equitable principle OF
clean hands" are inapplicable, since
in such cases the State becomes
q third party While it is a settled
principle Of law. the court points out.
that where parties are equally at fault
the court will refuse to extend them
aid and will leave them without rem
edy against each other, il is equally
true that where the State is an in
terested party. the contributing guilt
of the parties TO the suit will not
operate as a bar to the granting OF
relief.
The equitable rule as to clean hands
has no application where its enforce
ment would result in sustaining an
act declared by statute TO be void or
against public policy. In such cases
the interest of society intervenes and
the State is regarded as third party.
In conclusion the court points out
that the parties could ignore the void
marriage without any liability to
either party and the decree in favor
of the husband would amount to
nothing more than a general decree
in equity I'm his favor.
at is void by law" concluded the
opinion, "and the courts have no al.
when the matter is presented,
either directly or collaterally, in any
matter in which it becomes an issue,
but to declare it void. When it APP
pears to the court that a marriage
IS an absolute nuIlity, the duty Of the
court under the law Of this district il
TO decree it void and prevent any fur.
here criminal unions Of the paxtise.n