may be established upon the preponderance of repute, although there be repute against the reputed marriage as well as for it." Nor, after all, do cohabitation and repute afford more than a presumption of marriage; direct evidence that no marriage had been contracted, or even that the man cohabited with two women at the same time, would destroy the inference of virtue; and in every case the presumption of virtue and lawful marriage may be rebutted, but not where a criminal offence is involved in failure 69. Lyle v. Ellwood, L. R. 19 Eq. 98. 67. Goldbeck v. Goldbeck, 3 C. E. Green, 42; Port v. Port, 70 Ill. 484. See post, § 1256. In Jones v. Jones, 45 Md. 144; 8. C., 48 Md. 391, it is held, in the case of colored people, that the presumption of a previous marriage from cohabitation and repute is at once overthrown when one of the parties is shown to have married, subsequently, another person in due form while the other party is living. But compare Blanchard v. Lambert, 43 Ia. 228, which presumes rather that a divorce has been procured. Even though a marriage ceremony with A. be proved on B.'s part, it may be overcome by proof that B. had a prior spouse still living. Emerson v. Shaw, 56 N. H. 418. Presumption of marriage may be rebutted. Osborne V. McDonald, 159 F. 791; Osborne v. Ramsay, 191 F. 114, 111 C. C. A. 594; Prince v. Edwards, 175 Ala. 532, 57 So. 714; Smith v. People (Colo.), 170 P. 959 (common-law marriage); Klip- · fel's Estate v. Klipfel, 41 Colo. 40, 92 P. 26; Norman v. Goode, 113 Ga. 121, 38 S. E. 317 (presumption rebutted by proof of a subsequent marriage by one of the parties with a third person); Gorden v. Gorden, 283 Ill. 182, 119 N. E. 312; Hooper v. McCaffery, 83 Ill. App. 371; Compton v. Benham, 44 Ind. App. 51, 85 N. E. 365; Love v. Love (Ia.), 171 N. W. 257; Adkins v. Bently, 177 Ky. 616, 197 S. W. 1086; Jackson v. Claypool, 179 Ky. 662, 201 S. W. 2; Heminway v. Miller, 87 Minn. 123, 91 N. W. 428; Plattner v. Plattner, 116 Mo. App. 405, 91 S. W. 457; Coad v. Coad, 87 Neb. 290, 127 N. W. 455; Sorensen v. Sorensen, 68 Neb. 483, 100 N. W. 930, 103 N. W. 455; Bey v. Bey, 83 N. J. Eq. 239, 90 A. 684; Cramsey v. Sterling, 188 N. Y. 602, 81 N. E. 1162, 97 N. Y. S. 1082, 111 App. Div. 568; In re Hinman, 131 N. Y. S. 861, 147 App. Div. 452 (strong presumption); In re Grande's Estate, 141 N. Y. S. 535, 80 Misc. 450 (where legitimacy of child involved); In re Farley's Estate, 155 N. Y. S. 63, 91 Misc. 185; Fender v. Segro, 41 Okla. 318, 137 P. 103; Linsey v. Jefferson (Okla.), 172 P. 641; Coleman v. James (Okla.), 169 P. 1064; In re Callery's Estate, 226 Pa. 469, 75 A. 672 (common-law marriage); Commonwealth v. Haylow, 17 Pa. Super. Ct. 541; Smith v. North Memphis Sav. Bank, 115 Tenn. 12, 89 S. W. 392; In re Meade's Estate (W. Va.), 97 S. E. 127; Potter v. Potter, 45 Wash. 401, 88 P. 625; Weather 69 68 to celebrate the marriage in accordance with law. The presumption does not arise where one of them is under a legal disability to marry, and not from secret cohabitation and occasional admis sions, 70 The presumption is in favor of the validity of a ceremonial marriage followed by cohabitation as man and wife," and cohabitation and reputation of marriage are competent as tending to show an actual ceremonial marriage,72 which presumption, how all v. Weatherall, 56 Wash. 344, 105 P. 822; Potts v. Potts, 81 Wash. 27, 142 P. 448 (though common-law marriage not recognized). See Weatherall v. Weatherall, 63 Wash. 526, 115 P. 1078 (presumption not strong in case of lewd woman). 68 Summerville v. Summerville, 31 Wash. 411, 72 P. 84. 69 In re Morris' Estate, 157 N. Y. S. 472, 92 Misc. 630; Moore v. Moore, 102 Tenn. 148, 52 S. W. 778; contra, In re Watson's Estate, 161 N. Y. S. 875, 97 Misc. 538 (notwithstanding prohibition in divorce decree against remarriage and though first wife still alive, second marriage presumed legal). 70. Heminway v. Miller, 87 Minn. 123, 91 N. W. 428. 71. Botts v. Botts, 108 Ky. 414, 56 S. W. 961, 22 Ky. Law Rep. 212. 72. Sy Joc Lieng v. Sy Quia, 33 S. Ct. 514, 228 U. S. 335, 57 L. Ed. —; Moore v. Heineke, 119 Ala. 627, 24 So. 374; Farmer v. Towers, 106 Ark. 123, 152 S. W. 993; Posey v. Hanson, 10 App. D. C. 496; Jennings v. Webb, 8 App. D. C. 43; Drawdy v. Hesters, 130 Ga. 161, 60 S. E. 451; Gordon v. Gorden, 283 Ill. 182, 119 N. E. 312; Follett v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 209 Ill. App. 81; Marks v. Marks, 108 Ill. App. 371; In re Wittick's Estate, 164 Ia. 485, 145 N. W. 913; Pegg v. Pegg, 138 Ia. 572, 115 N. W. 1027; Bartee v. Edmunds, 29 Ky. Law Rep. 872, 96 S. W. 535; Caldwell v. Williams (Ky., 1909), 118 S. W. 932; Pope v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 175 S. W. 955; Bishop v. Brittain Inv. Co., 229 Mo. 699, 129 S. W. 668 (deeds admissible to show man a bachelor); Plattner v. Plattner, 116 Mo. App. 405, 91 S. W. 457; Forbes v. Burgess, 158 N. C. 131, 73 S. E. 792; Dietrich v. Dietrich, 112 N. Y. S. 968, 128 App. Div. 564; Linsey v. Jefferson (Okla.), 172 P. 641; Williams v. Herrick, 21 R. I. 401, 43 A. 1036, 79 Am. St. R. 809 (reputation must be general and uniform); Cave v. Cave, 101 S. C. 40, 85 S. E. 244; Berger v. Kirby, 153 S. W. 1130, affg. judg. (Civ. App.), 135 S. W. 1122; Cuneo v. De Cuneo, 24 Tex. Civ. App. 436, 59 S. W. 284 (addresses of letters written her are admissible to show general reputation); Jordan v. Johnson (Tex. Civ. App.), 155 S. W. 1194; Schwingle v. Keifer (Tex. Civ. App., 1911), 135 S. W. 194 (reputation may be proved by persons not members of family). In a criminal proceeding for criminal conversation reputation of marriage is no defence. Frederick V. ever, may be rebutted by evidence of oral and written statements of one of the parties though not in the presence of the other denying the marriage.73 § 1248. Family Repute. General repute in a family, proved by surviving members of it, is admissible upon a question of marriage or pedigree.74 § 1249. Reputation of Parties. On the issue of a common-law marriage it may be shown that the woman was a prostitute, but not that she had a reputation as being a prostitute.75 § 1250. Presumption Where Relations Illicit in Inception. Where relations between a man and woman were illicit in their inception the presumption is that they continued as illicit, in the absence of evidence of a marriage,76 but the presumption that an Morse, 88 Vt. 126, 92 A. 16; Weatherall v. Weatherall, 56 Wash. 344, 105 P. 822. See In re Svendsen's Estate, 37 S. D. 353, 158 N. W. 410. 73. In re Imboden's Estate, 111 Mo. App. 220, 86 S. W. 263. 74. Barnum v. Barnum, 42 Md. 251; Ib. 75. Warren v. Canard, 30 Okla. 514, 120 P. 599. 76. Darling v. Dent, 82 Ark. 76, 100 S. W. 747; Klipfel's Estate v. Klipfel, 41 Colo. 40, 92 P. 26; Drawdy v. Hesters, 130 Ga. 161, 60 S. E. 451; Gorden v. Gorden, 283 Ill. 182, 119 N. E. 312; Bellinger v. Devine, 269 Ill. 72, 109 N. E. 666; Robinson v. Ruprecht, 191 Ill. 424, 61 N. E. 631; Pike v. Pike, 112 Ill. App. 243; Marks v. Marks, 108 Ill. App. 371; Compton v. Benham, 44 Ind. App. 51, 85 N. E. 365; Keen v. Keen, 184 Mo. 358, 83 S. W. 526, 201 U. S. 319, 26 S. Ct. 494, 50 L. Ed. 772; Howard v. Kelly, 111 Miss. 285, 71 So. 391; Dietrich v. Dietrich, 112 N. Y. S. 968, 128 App. Div. 564; Bell v. Clarke, 92 N. Y. S. 163, 45 Misc. 272; United States Trust Co. v. Maxwell, 57 N. Y. S. 53, 26 Misc. 276; Moller v. Sommer, 149 N. Y. S. 103, 86 Misc. 110, 150 N. Y. S. 1097; Spencer v. Spencer, 147 N. Y. S. 111, 84 Misc. 264; Wilson v. Burnett, 172 N. Y. S. 673; In re Eichler, 146 N. Y. S. 846, 84 Misc. 667; McBean v. McBean, 37 Ore. 195, 61 P. 418; In re Fuller's Estate, 250 Pa. 78, 95 A. 382; In re Patterson's Estate, 237 Pa. 24, 85 A. 75; Commonwealth v. Gamble, 36 Pa. Super. Ct. 146; Henry v. Taylor, 16 S. D. 424, 93 N. W. 641; In re Svendsen's Estate, 37 S. D. 353, 158 N. W. 410; Eldred v. Eldred, 97 Va. 606, 34 S. illicit relation continued as such may be rebutted by evidence of an actual marriage between the parties." If a particular marriage celebration is set up to overcome the unfavorable presumption arising from illicit connection, that particular marriage should be proved. 78 The presumption in favor of decency and virtue may be overcome, therefore, by counter-presumption. And as a cohabitation illicitly begun is presumed to so continue until proof of change, a marriage will not, in England or most parts of the United States, be presumed from such cohabitation and repute, unless something open and unequivocal, like a legal marriage ceremony, upon fit opportunity, puts both parties in a virtuous relation. But States and countries, if there be such, which favor informal marriage, instead of requiring ceremonies, might show, by way of presumption, more favor in this respect.79 § 1251. Presumption of Continuance of Marriage. A marriage shown to exist is presumed to continue in the absence of other evidence which presumption is disputable and 80 E. 477; Rockcastle Mining, Lumber & Oil Co. v. Baker, 167 Ky. 66, 179 8. W. 1070 (may presume marriage from cohabitation for long period although relations illicit in inception). See Bishop v. Brittain Inv. Co., 229 Mo. 699, 129 S. W. 668 (where relations platonic till death of first wife, no presumption that illicit). 77. Drawdy v. Hesters, 130 Ga. 161, 60 S. E. 451; Schaffer v. Krestovnikow (N. J.), 105 A. 239. 78. Barnum v. Barnum, 42 Md. 251. 79. See Floyd v. Calvert, 53 Miss. 37; Duncan v. Duncan, 10 Ohio St. 181; Barnum v. Barnum, 42 Md. 251; supra, § 1169 et seq. See Breadalbane's Case, L. R. 1 H. L. Sc. 182, where the subject is discussed with some bias in this direction. In Collins v. Collins, 80 N. Y. 1, even where marriage under a disability was believed by a woman to be lawful, cohabitation subsequent to the removal of the disability, and in reliance simply upon the void marriage, was held insufficient. 80. Nelson v. Jones, 245 Mo. 579, 151 S. W. 80; Duff v. Duff, 156 Mo. App. 247, 137 S. W. 909 (one unmarried when he disappeared is presumed to remain so); In re Caltabellotta's Will, 171 N. Y. S. 82, 183 App. Div. 753; State v. Eggleston, 45 Ore. 346, 77 P. 738; Summerhill v. Darrow, 94 Tex. 71, 57 S. W. 942; Hilliard v. Wisconsin Life Ins. Co., 137 Wis. 208, 117 N. W. 999. will give way to a higher presumption.81 The presumption in favor of the continuance of a marriage will usually give way to a presumption in favor of the validity of a second marriage,82 but where successive marriages occur the presumption in favor of the legality of each is equal and an actual marriage must be established by proof.88 § 1252. Presumption of Dissolution of Prior Marriage. It will be presumed that where parties live openly together as husband and wife for many years a prior marriage of one of them to a third party has been dissolved by death or divorce and mere proof of a prior marriage of one of the parties will not overcome 81. In re Baldwin's Estate, 162 Cal. 471, 123 P. 267. As between a nonceremonial unwitnessed marriage, attempted to be established by repute and the declarations of the deceased man, and the later formal marriage ceremony between the man and another woman, of which marriage there was issue, presumptions will not be indulged, but the issue will be decided on the evidence. In re Rossignot's Will, 112 N. Y. S. 353. 82. United States v. Green, 98 F. 63; Murchison v. Green, 128 Ga. 339, 37 S. E. 709, 11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 702; In re Meehan's Estate, 135 N. Y. S. 723, 150 App. Div. 681; contra, Goodwin v. Goodwin, 113 Ia. 319, 85 N. W. 31 (where property rights involved). 83. Staley v. State, 87 Neb. 539, 127 N. W. 878. 84. McLaughlin v. McLaughlin (Ala.), 78 So. 388; Goset v. Goset, 112 Ark. 47, 164 S. W. 759; Town of Roxbury v. Town of Bridgewater, 85 Conn. 196, 82 A. 193; State v. Collins (Del. Gen. Sess.), 99 A. 87; Hager v. Brandt, 111 Ia. 746, 82 N. W. 1016; Lyon v. Lash, 79 Kan. 342, 99 P. 598; Scott's Adm'r v. Scott, 25 Ky. Law Rep. 1356, 77 S. W. 1122; Schaffer v. Richardson's Estate, 125 Md. 88, 93 A. 391; In re FitzGibbon's Estate, 17 Det. Leg. N. 607, 127 N. W. 313; Price v. Tompkins, 171 N. Y. S. 844, 172 N. Y. S. 915; Lazarowicz v. Lazarowicz, 154 N. Y. S. 107, 91 Misc. 116; Hale v. Hale, 40 Okla. 101, 135 P. 1143; Chancey v. Whinnery, 147 P. 1036; Coachman v. Sims, 36 Okla. 536, 129 P. 845; In re Hilton's Estate (Pa.), 106 A. 69. See Succession of Thomas (La.), 80 So. 186 (no presumption of good faith of woman of mature years who marries a man whom she knows to be already married depending on his mere statement of a divorce); contra, In re Stanton, 123 N. Y. S. 458 (where by statute no second marriage shall be made during life of first spouse unless he is sentenced to jail for life). See learned note in 30 Harvard Law Review, 500. |