Court Opinion

ID: 9831878
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:26:56.742714+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:38.778596
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
The evidence in this case shows that Mrs. Cole got a divorce from Eugene Nicholson, filing her suit for the divorce on February 18, 1920, and securing the divorce the latter part of that summer. She testified that she was induced to file a suit for divorce because Mr. Cole wanted her to do so, rather than to rely on a divorce granted theretofore, which Mrs. Cole testified Mr. Nicholson had written her he had obtained. After this divorce was granted, Mrs. Cole continued to live with Mr. Cole as his wife, up to some time in September, 1928. Therefore, for some eight years the appellee and appellant continued to live and cohabit together as husband and wife after the divorce was obtained from Nicholson. Hence, the evidence shows that the questions discussed by the jurors Cosby, Tyson, and Thompson were with reference to matters entirely beyond the record, according to appellee’s testimony, and the records of the Seventeenth judicial district court introduced in evidence. At least for eight years Mrs. Cole was authorized to contract a marriage with Cole. We believe that under the ruling of the Supreme Court in Bradley v. T. & P. Ry. Co., 1 S.W.(2d) 861, 862, and other cases cited in our original opinion, the motion for rehearing should be overruled. It is accordingly so ordered.