213 Mass. 334 | Mass. | 1913
“That a marriage, valid by the laws of the place where it is celebrated, is valid in this State, on grounds of public policy, though the parties went into another State merely to evade the laws of the State, is established in the cases of Medway v. Needham, 16 Mass. 157; West Cambridge v. Lexington, 1 Pick. 506; Putnam v. Putnam, 8 Pick. 433; Sutton v. Warren, 10 Met. 451.” Dewey, J., in Commonwealth v. Hunt, 4 Cush. 49. See also Commonwealth v. Lane, 113 Mass. 458, and cases therein cited for a general discussion of the subject. By statute in this Commonwealth certain cases have been freed from the operation of this rule, and in those specified cases the marriage is void in this Commonwealth, “if the parties, both being resident here and intending to return and reside here,” go into a foreign State in order to evade the provisions of our statute, “and there have the marriage solemnized, and return and reside here.” . R. L. c. 151, §§ 1-5, both inclusive, and § 10. The present case does not come within these statutes, and therefore is governed by the general law.
The question of the validity of the marriage must be decided by the law of New Hampshire. In the absence of proof to the contrary the common law of that State must be regarded as the same as in this State. The only statute of that State material to this inquiry is St.' 1907, c. 80, § 2, which is as follows: “The age of consent shall be in the male eighteen years and in the female sixteen years. Any marriage contracted by a person below the age of consent” with certain exceptions not here material, “may in the
Petition dismissed without prejudice.