TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Ex Parte Romans

Ex Parte Romans.

Ex Parte Romans, 58 S.E. 614 (S.C. 1907)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of South Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided
September 20, 1907
Docket
No. 6661
Judges
Woods
Citations
58 S.E. 61478 S.C. 2101907 S.C. LEXIS 192
Disposition
Affirmed.
Syllabus
Negroes — Marriage—Administration.—A negro man and woman contracting in 1865 before one not authorized by the act of 1865 to marry negroes and a number of other witnesses to live as man and wife, who lived together as man and wife a number of years and were so recognized in the community, were husband and wife, and upon his decease the woman is entitled to administer on his estate as against one whom he afterward married.
Summary
Before Prince, J., Greenwood. Petition in Probate Court by Luvinia Romans for letters of administration! upon estate of Daniel Romans. From Circuit decree, affirming judgment of Probate Court granting her letters, Henrietta Romans appeals. cites: 10 Cl. & F., 534; 74 S. C., 407; Acts of 1865 and 1872.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Woods

The opinion of the Court was delivered by Mr. Justice Woods.

Upon the death of Daniel Romans, a negro-, Luvinia Romans, claiming to be his widow, applied to the Probate Court of Greenwood County for letters of administration on his estate. The appellant, Henrietta Romans, denying that Daniel Romans and Luvinia Romans were married, asserted the right of administration as the lawful wife of Romans- at his death. The judgment o-f the Probate- Court holding Luvinia to be the true wido-w was affirmed by the Circuit Court, and we can discover no ground to doubt the correctness of the conclusion.

Appellant admits that before her own marriage to Romans, there was a marriage ceremony in December, 1868, by which Daniel Romans and Luvinia contracted in the pres *211 ence of witnesses to be husband and wife, and that Romans and Luvinia immediately thereafter publicly entered into marriage relations which were continued until he deserted her.

The validity of Ruvinia’s marriage was attacked on the sole ground that the marriage was not solemnized by a clergyman, the District Judge or magistrate or any judicial officer as provided by the Act of 1865. The statute of 1S65 contains these provisions on which appellant relies: “Persons of color desirous hereafter to become husband and wife, should have the contract of marriage duly solemnized. A clergyman, the District Judge, a magistrate, or any judicial officer may solemnize marriages.” But the same statute also contains this provision: “Cohabitation, with reputation or recognition of the parties shall be evidence of marriage in cases criminal and civil.” In addition to this, by the act of 1866 (13 Stat., 366, 29), all differences between persons of color and white persons as to the right to contract were done away with.

The judgment of this Court is, that the judgment of the Circuit Court be affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1914: 11959: 119142026peak 1914 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. In re Love's Estate1914 OK 332, 142 P. 305
  2. Coogler v. Dorn328 S.W.2d 506 (Ark. 1959)

Most recent

  1. Coogler v. Dorn328 S.W.2d 506 (Ark. 1959)
  2. In re Love's Estate1914 OK 332, 142 P. 305

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list