Hunter v. Hunter
Citations
- 111 Cal. 261
- 43 P. 756
- 1896 Cal. LEXIS 572
Syllabus
<p>Annulment of Marriage—Previous Marriage of Defendant—Presumptions— Continuance of Life—Innocence—Legality of Marriage—Divorce—Burden of Proof. —In an action to annul a marriage on the ground of the previous marriage of the woman to another husband, who has not been heard of for four and a half years at the time of the second marriage, in the absence of proof that the first husband was then living, or had not been divorced from the defendant, the presumption in favor of the innocence of the defendant from crime or wrong and of the legality of the second marriage will prevail over the presumption of continuance of life of the first husband; and the burden is cast upon the party asserting her guilt or immorality to prove that the first marriage was not ended by death or divorce before the second marriage.</p> <p>Id.—Subsequent Divorce of Defendant from First Husband—Conclusiveness of Decree—Status of Defendant.—A decree in an action for a divorce brought by the defendant from her first husband, after having lived twenty-two years with her second husband, in which action the summons was served by publication, is only conclusive that the status of the defendant was no longer that of the wife of the first husband, and is not conclusive as an adjudication that the former husband was then alive, nor that she was his wife when she married the plaintiff.</p> <p>Id,—Affidavits of Defendant—Evidence—Estoppel Affidavits made by the defendant in her proceedings for divorce, and in a subsequent action brought by her to annul the first marriage, which was dismissed, stating upon the strength of rumors heard by her that her first husband was then living, and that he was living at the time of her second marriage, and that she had not then been divorced from him, though strong evidence against her, do not create an estoppel, nor preclude the court from finding that there was no authentic information that the first husband was alive at the time of the second marriage, upon explanato
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that “presumption in favor of innocence and the legality of the marriage between plaintiff and defendant should prevail; and the burden is with the party objecting to its validity to prove it is not valid”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Temple
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
49 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Rediker v. RedikerCalifornia Supreme Court· 1950-08-18· cited 87×
- In re the Application for Letters of Administration de Bonis Non on the Goods, Chattels & Credits of MeehanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York· 1912-05-31· cited 49×
- In re ButtlesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York· 1941-02-07· cited 49×
- Turner v. WilliamsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1909-06-22· cited 37×
- Maier v. BrockSupreme Court of Missouri· 1909-07-01· cited 34×
- The City of Phoenix v. JohnsonArizona Supreme Court· 1938-01-10· cited 33×
- Scheibe v. ScheibeCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1943-02-26· cited 32×
- In re Estate of SwalesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York· 1901-07-01· cited 31×
- Branford Baptist Church v. NicholsCalifornia Supreme Court· 1949-01-11· cited 31×
- Bertha Tatum v. Oscar TatumNinth Circuit· 1957-01-30· cited 30×
- Simpson v. SimpsonSupreme Court of Virginia· 1934-06-14· cited 30×
- Chakmakjian v. LoweCalifornia Supreme Court· 1949-01-25· cited 28×
- Watson v. WatsonCalifornia Supreme Court· 1952-07-14· cited 24×
- Smith v. AtkinsonCalifornia Supreme Court· 1973-03-15· cited 21×
- Hamrick v. HamrickCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1953-08-24· cited 21×
- Moran v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1940-04-04· cited 20×
- In re Estate ColtonSupreme Court of Iowa· 1906-02-07· cited 20×
- Bancroft v. BancroftCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1935-10-15· cited 19×
- Rossi v. ZappaterraCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1965-05-20· cited 19×
- Goldberg v. GoldbergCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1962-05-09· cited 18×
Cites
6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Schmisseur v. BeatrieIllinois Supreme Court· 1893-10-27· cited 50×
- Town of Greensborough v. Town of UnderhillSupreme Court of Vermont· 1839-08-15· cited 30×
- Lockhart v. WhiteTexas Supreme Court· 1856-07-01· cited 26×
- People v. StokesCalifornia Supreme Court· 1886-11-04· cited 15×
- Sharp v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Arkansas· 1860-10-15· cited 12×
- Gouraud v. GouraudNew York Surrogate's Court· 1878-02-15· cited 1×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.