Court Opinion

ID: 9831441
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:06:40.671103+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:34.801679
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
It seems clear from what was said in the original opinion that as Melvin Williams did not know that Iona Williams had divorced him (according to his own sworn testimony), he did not after the date of the divorce decree enter into an agreement with said Iona Williams to presently become husband and wife.
Appellee, upon motion for rehearing, contends that as Melvin Williams did not know of the divorce, and consequently continued to live with Iona Williams apparently as her husband, and that as Iona Williams despite the fact that she had secured a divorce continued to live with Melvin Williams apparently as his wife, the law will presume or imply a marriage valid under the common law.
We do not agree with the contention. An agreement to marry, which is an essential basis for a common law marriage, may be inferred from surrounding facts and circumstances which point to an actual agreement having been made. The ■ fact of marriage is often established by this species of evidence. But, as we understand the authorities, the inference of the existence of a marriage agreement can not be drawn from circumstances contrary to the direct testimony of a litigant (who asserts the existence of a marriage) as to facts, which if true, demonstrate that no marriage agreement was entered into.
The factual situation disclosed by the record is unusual to say the least. Appel-lee is in the position of relying upon a marriage agreement which according to his testimony never existed. The law under such circumstances can not imply a marriage.
Final judgments and decrees of judicial tribunals determining the status of persons and consequently property rights, must necessarily be given effect if their purpose of settling controversies and stabilizing legal rights is to be attained. No attack is made in this suit upon the legality of the decree of divorce and, consequently it fixes and determines the rights of the litigants in this proceeding.
Appellee’s motion for rehearing is overruled.