Court Opinion

ID: 9778811
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 21:21:32.939869+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:13.326474
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Smith
dissenting.
The court has substituted its findings for that of the trial court. The trial court’s judgment is supported by evidence: Respondent proved a prima facie common law marriage. It was alleged and proved that relator, a man 21 years of age, and respondent agreed to be husband and wife on or about February 14, 1959. It was alleged and proved that they lived together as husband and wife until on or about April 7, 1959. It was alleged and proved that they held themselves out to the public as being husband and wife. Common law marriages are recognized in Texas. The trial court has conducted a trial and heard the evidence, and on November 2, 1959 entered a judgment directing the relator to pay into the Jefferson County Child Support Office on Friday, November 6, 1959, and on each Friday of each week thereafter during the pendency of the suit, the sum of $25.00 for the support and maintenance of the re^ spondent. There is no evidence that the unborn child mentioned in the record is not the natural result of the prima facie common law marriage.
This habeas corpus proceeding is a collateral attack on the judgment, declaring that a common law marriage existed. This court has no jurisdiction to weigh the evidence to determine whether it preponderates against the judgment. See Ex Parte Kollenborn, 154 Texas 223, 276 S.W. 2d 251; Ex Parte Helms, 152 Texas 480, 259 S.W. 2d 184.
The court states that its opinion is not determinative of whether there was or was not a common law marriage. It is difficult for me to conceive of a more effective manner that the court could adopt to effectually preclude a finding in favor of the respondent on the question of common law marriage. It is for the legislature and not this court to decide whether or *488.not common law marriages will continue to have legal sanction in Texas.
The relator should be remanded to the Sheriff of Jefferson County to be by him confined in accordance with the order of the trial court.
Opinion delivered March 23, 1960.