Johnson v. Johnson

Citations

• 114 Ill. 611
• 3 N.E. 232

Syllabus

<p>1. Divoboe—in case of a void marriage—former husband living. A decree of divorce can not be had by the wife on the ground of desertion, if the complainant, at the time of the alleged marriage in respect of which the divorce is sought, had a husband then living, and the prior marriage had not been dissolved by divorce, although the former husband may have deserted her and had not been heard of by her for six years before her second marriage. In such case the second marriage is a nullity.</p> <p>2. Mabbiage—its validity—presumptions in respect thereto—long continued absence of former husband. Where a marriage in fact is shown, the' law raises a strong presumption in favor of its legality, and the burden of proof is on the party contesting its validity to show that it is not valid.</p> <p>3. So, although the presumption in favor of the validity of a marriage in fact, and of the innocence of the contracting parties, may conflict with that of the continued life of a former husband or wife not heard from for a period less than seven years prior to the second marriage, yet if neither presumption is aided by proof of facts or circumstances cooperating with it, the presumption of the validity of the second marriage must prevail over the other»</p> <p>4. Where a woman, six years after her husband was last heard from, is-married to another man, and the validity of the latter marriage is brought im question many years afterward, on the presumption that her former husbandi was living at the time of such last marriage, the court may take into consideration the fact that the former husband has not since that -time been heard from; and in such case the dissolution of the former marriage by death or divorce before her second marriage will be presumed.</p> <p>5. The general presumption is that life continues for seven years after am absent party is last heard from, and after the lapse of that time, death is presumed; but the presumption is not conclusive, and maybe rebutted by pro