Alexander v. Alexander

Citations

• 36 App. D.C. 78
• 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 5954

Syllabus

<p>Husband and Wife; Estoppel; Evidence; Burden of Proof; Presumption of Death; Alimony; Appeal and Error.</p> <p>1. Where a husband, with knowledge of the facts, continues to live with his wife for many years, he is estopped to assert a right to an annulment of the marriage on the ground that one of her children, born prior to the marriage, is illegitimate.</p> <p>2. In a suit by a man to annul his marriage, upon the ground that, at the time of the marriage, the defendant had a prior husband living and undivorced, the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to establish that the prior husband was living at the time of the marriage.</p> <p>3. While, in the absence of any evidence as to his whereabouts, the law, within seven years after his departure, will presume that a person is still alive, yet this presumption may be removed by credible evidence of his death, however slight.</p> <p>4. The presumption that a woman’s prior husband, absent less than seven years; was still living, is removed where she, called as a witness in a suit to annul a subsequent marriage, testifies that he was in failing health, being afflicted with tuberculosis, and that he decided to make a change of climate, in the hope of recovery, and accordingly obtained a position as traveling salesman in California; that he left her with the assurance that he intended to return, and that shortly afterwards she received a letter stating he had been taken with a hemorrhage on the train, and had died; failure to produce the letter being accounted for.</p> <p>i</p> <p>5. Where, in a suit by a husband against his wife, to annul their marriage, the court denies the relief sought, it has no jurisdiction to award permanent alimony to the wife. (Construing D. C. Code, sec. 975-978, 31 Stat. at L. 1346, chap. 854.)</p> <p>6. Where, on an appeal by the plaintiff from a decree dismissing a bill by a husband to annul a marriage, and granting permanent alimony to the wife, this court found that the court below was ri