Pierce v. Pierce

Citations

• 58 Wash. 622
• 109 P. 45
• 1910 Wash. LEXIS 979

Syllabus

<p>Divorce—Maeriase—Right to Remabey—Domicile—Intent op Parties. Where a person is divorced in this state, and marries again in another state or country within the prohibited period during which an appeal from the divorce decree could have been taken, in violation of Rem. & Bal. Code, § 991, the validity of the marriage depends upon the domicile of the party at the time of the marriage, the statutes of this state having no extraterritorial force except as to parties domiciled in this state who leave for the purpose of evading the law and returning to their domicile.</p> <p>Divorce—Right to Remarry—Domicile—Evidence of Intent— Sufficiency. Where the validity of a marriage depends upon the domicile of the parties and the legitimacy of a child is involved, all doubts are resolved in favor of its validity; and the evidence is insufficient to show that a divorced woman who married again shortly after in Victoria, B. C., was domiciled in this state and left here with the intent to evade our laws and return, where she testified positively that she objected to such a proceeding on the ground of its illegality, and acted upon a suggestion that she go there to live, being assured that she would like it there, and it appears that the other party to the marriage had his business up for sale, went to Victoria alone, and sent back for her to come and be married, and after the marriage, they returned to this state because he saw no opening for business there, and they then lived in this state as husband and wife, where they had one child.</p> <p>Same—Estoppel. In such a case, the man should not be heard to deny the marriage if he induced the woman to leave the state to marry him with an intent to establish a domicile in another country.</p>