Summary
In McVicker v. McVicker, 76 U.S. App. D.C. 208, 130 F.2d 837, where the parties were married in Virginia before the end of the six-month waiting period prescribed by the decree, which divorced the husband from his former wife, but relying on the ceremonial marriage lived together as husband and wife in the District of Columbia for more than two years, the Court held that the removal of the impediment to marriage while the parties continued to live together as husband and wife gave rise to a common-law marriage.
Summary of this case from Henderson v. HendersonOpinion
No. 8019.
Submitted June 29, 1942.
Decided August 20, 1942.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia.
Suit for limited divorce by Fonda Donnally McVicker against John Francis McVicker, wherein defendant filed a cross-complaint for annulment. From a decree dismissing the complaint and granting the cross-complaint, complainant appeals.
Reversed.
Mr. John L. Laskey, of Washington, D.C., for appellant.
Mr. Warren E. Miller, of Washington, D.C., for appellee.
Before STEPHENS, EDGERTON, and RUTLEDGE, Associate Justices.
This appeal is from a decree which dismissed appellant's complaint for limited divorce, and granted appellee's cross-complaint for annulment, on the ground that the marriage ceremony between the parties took place before the end of a six-month waiting period prescribed by a Virginia decree which had divorced appellee from a former wife. We think the court erred. For, as it found, the parties "relying on said ceremonial marriage lived together as husband and wife in the District of Columbia for more than two years preceding" the filing of appellant's complaint. In this jurisdiction, "the removal of an impediment while parties continue to live together as husband and wife gives rise to a common-law marriage." Thomas v. Murphy, 71 App.D.C. 69, 70, 107 F.2d 268. Parrella v. Parrella, 74 App.D.C. 161, 120 F.2d 728. We need not consider questions of estoppel, laches, and waiver.
Reversed.