Court Opinion

ID: 9856031
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:36:44.945171+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:25:55.720267
License: Public Domain

WiNBORNE, C.J.
The determinative question on this appeal is whether or not the lower court erred in nonsuiting the intervenor and concluding as a matter of law, upon the admitted facts and the evidence adduced at the trial, that the petitioner is entitled to dower in the lands of which David M. Williams died seized and possessed.
Ordinarily the petitioner has the burden of proof. However, in cases of voluntary intervention the intervenor has the burden of proving his case and establishing the rights claimed. McKinney v. Sutphin, 196 N.C. 318, 145 S.E. 621; Jennings v. Shannon, 200 N.C. 1, 156 S.E. 89.
It is said in the McKinney case, supra: “The intervener becomes the actor and the burden of the issue is on the intervener,” citing Sitterson v. Speller, 190 N.C. 192, 129 S.E. 191; Lockhart v. Ins. Co., 193 N.C. 8, 136 S.E 243; Sugg v Engine Co., 193 N.C. 814, 138 S.E. 169.
In the case in hand there is evidence that the petitioner and the intestate were married in 1929 and lived together for about two years before separation. In fact the intervenor stipulated and agreed that Effie Banks Williams and David Williams were lawfully married on 21 December 1929, and lived together as husband and wife in Johnston County. There is further evidence to the effect that after the separation the deceased visited petitioner periodically for four years. There is also evidence that the parties involved lived only four or five miles from each other from the time of the marriage between the petitioner and deceased in 1929 until the latter’s death in 1959. Furthermore, the petitioner testified that she had not married again; that she had not signed any papers concerning a divorce or separation; and that she had never been served by anyone with papers relating to an action for divorce. The intervenor, Cassie Morgan Williams, offered evidence of her alleged marriage to the intestate in 1953, and that thereafter she continuously lived with him in his home until the date of his death.
Indeed, the intervenor, Cassie Morgan Williams, does not allege in her interplea that David Williams was ever divorced from the petitioner, Effie Banks Williams, or that she had defeated her right to dower by abandonment and infidelity as provided by G.S. 52-20. In short, the intervenor has not alleged nor offered any evidence show*731ing or tending to show that David Williams was legally able to marry her on 30 December 1953.
One who asserts a property right which is dependent upon the invalidity of a marriage must make good his cause by proof. See Kearney v. Thomas, 225 N.C. 156, 33 S.E. 2d 871.
The appellant relies on the language in the Kearney case to reverse the trial court’s ruling. There it is said: “A second or subsequent marriage is presumed legal until the contrary be proved, and he who asserts its illegality must prove it. In such case the presumption of innocence and morality prevail over the presumption of the continuance of the first and former marriage.” However, in that case, the death of the first wife being admitted, the question before the Court was whether or not the evidence was sufficient to be submitted to the jury upon the validity of a subsequent marriage.
The law indulges in presumptions from the necessities of the case in the absence of sufficient evidence to establish the fact to be proved. In the present case, the burden was not upon the petitioner to show that her marriage was valid because this was stipulated and admitted by the intervenor. And the burden was upon the intervenor to show by evidence that the marriage had been invalidated or dissolved. This she has failed to do. In fine, all the evidence is to the effect that the marriage between Effie Banks Williams and David Williams had not been legally dissolved at his death. There is no evidence to the contrary. Therefore, the conclusion is that the court properly nonsuited the intervenor and decided the questions as a matter of law.
For reasons stated the judgment from which appeal is taken is
Affirmed.