Court Opinion

ID: 9536909
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:09:20.64974+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:55:30.999093
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE HASWELL
(dissenting) .-
I dissent.
In.my view section 48-151, R.C.M.1947, rendered the purported marriage “unlawful” and “void” because relator was *487prohibited from re-marrying within six months after a previous divorce. ' Such purported marriage violated the declared public policy of this state. Section 48-142, R.C.M.1947.
The majority has, in effect, construed the statutory declaration that such marriage is “void” to mean that it is “voidable”. In so doing, public policy prohibiting this marriage has been rendered meaningless and illusory by making its validity dependent upon the will of the parties. As I see it, the effect of the majority opinion is that the prohibited marriage is valid until one of the spouses has it judicially declared void at which time it only beeames void prospectively. I would construe the word “void” as used in the statute to mean without legal effect at any time for any purpose.
For the foregoing reasons I would hold that the Angvalls were never married, that the spousal immunity rule has no application, and that the trial court’s denial of relator’s motion for summary judgment was correct.