23 N.W.2d 582 | Minn. | 1946
Defendant answered, admitting the accumulation of certain property but otherwise making a general denial. At the trial in 1945, he made a motion to amend the answer and set up a defense that he had been previously married in 1922 and that the previous marriage had not been dissolved until January 21, 1942. In reply, plaintiff asked the court, if this were true, to grant an annulment of the alleged common-law marriage and make a determination of the property rights of the parties. Defendant's motion to amend his answer was held in abeyance, and testimony was taken regarding the relations between the parties and the accumulation of property. At the end of plaintiff's case defendant's motion was granted. The lower court found that defendant had been married long prior to 1933 and that both parties hereto knew that he was still married in 1933 and until he was divorced in 1942. The court further found that "plaintiff and defendant are not now and never were husband and wife." Further, it found that there was a subsequently commenced action pending to determine the property rights of the parties, and it denied all relief. *171
Defendant admits that he was married before 1933 and he has used an assumed name since abandoning his wife and children in 1929. For the abandonment, he was apprehended by the sheriff at the trial of this suit.
The issue here is whether the parties were married at common law and, if not, whether the request by plaintiff for a division of the property was properly denied.
1. The lower court found, and it is sustained by the evidence, that defendant was married prior to 1933 and not divorced until 1942. A common-law marriage with him during this time was not possible. "No marriage shall be contracted while either of the parties has a husband or wife living; * * *." L. 1911, c. 222, G. S. 1923, § 8564, Minn. St. 1941, §
Minn. St. 1941, §
Because no marriage between these parties was possible prior to defendant's divorce and because common-law marriages were outlawed in 1941, the parties never effected a marriage.
2. The lower court found that plaintiff knew of defendant's prior marriage at the time the alleged common-law marriage commenced, and an examination of the record discloses ample evidence to support this conclusion. Where the arrangement under which the parties lived together was a meretricious one, the court will grant no relief. In re Brenchley's Estate,
Order affirmed.