Randlett v. Rice

A man married A. in Vermont in 1836, and lived with her there until 1863, when he went to Canada with B., by whom he had a child, whom he always afterwards recognized as his son, and who bore his name. B. died the same year. In 1864, he went through the form of marriage with C. in New Hampshire, and lived with her for several years, she supposing she was his wife. In 1866, A. died. In 1867, he married D. in this Commonwealth, and lived with her as well as with C. for nearly a year, until D.'s discovery of his relations with C., when D. ceased to live with him, he acknowledging to her that C. was his wife; and he then went back to C. and lived with her for many years in New Hampshire and Maine, recognizing her as his wife. In 1880, D., while the man whom she married in 1867 was living, but of whom she had not heard since he left her, married another man, supposing her former marriage to be void. Neither C. nor D. knew of the existence of A., and A.’s husband bad no knowledge of her death until after the events above set forth. On the death of the man whom D. married in 1880, she filed a petition in the Probate Court for an allowance from his estate as his widow. Held, that there was no presumption of law that the man so many times married was divorced from A. before his marriage to C., or was legally married to C. after A. died, and before his marriage to D., or that he obtained a divorce from D. before she married again in 1880; and that the facts would not, in favor of D/s innocence, permit such inferences of fact to be drawn; that D’s marriage in 1867 was a valid marriage, and the one in 1880 invalid; and that her petition must be dismissed.

Appeal, by the administrator of the estate of Thomas L. Randlett, from a decree of the Probate Court allowing $1500 to Louisa E. Randlett, as the widow of the intestate, upon her petition for an allowance out of the estate of her deceased husband, under the Pub. Sts. c. 135, § 2. The appellant specified the following reason for appeal: “ Because at the time of her alleged marriage to said Thomas L. Randlett she had a lawful husband then alive, whose name is Ira Alexander, and therefore the alleged marriage with Thomas L. Randlett was illegal and void, and she is not his widow.” The case was heard by Morton, C. J., who found that the petitioner was not legally married to Thomas L. Randlett, and ordered that her petition be dismissed; and, at the request of the petitioner, reported the case to the full court, in substance as follows: There was evidence tending to show that Ira Alexander Haven had resided in Vermont in the year 1836, and that on the twentieth day of January of that year, he married one Emeroy Horton, and that they lived together for several years as man and wife, and had two children; that, in the year 1863, Haven fled the country to Canada with another woman, with whom he lived there and by whom he had a child, who was born in 1863, the mother dying soon after the birth of the child. It did not appear whether any ceremony of marriage took place between this child’s mother and his father, who had changed his name to Ira Alexander, by which name he has always since been known. The father acknowledged the child as his; he has since borne his name and lived with him and been brought up by him as his child, is still acknowledged by him as his child, and still lives with him. The boy appeared in court and testified that he was his son. Ho proceedings of affiliation of this son in Canada or elsewhere were shown. There was also evidence tending to show that said Alexander left Canada and came to Portsmouth, Hew Hampshire, late in the year 1863, and worked in the Havy Yard there from May, 1864, to January, 1866 ; that, when he came to Portsmouth, he boarded in the family of the father and mother of Mary Jane Dennett, then a single woman of thirty years of age; that Alexander paid said Mary Jane such attentions as are usual between persons intending marriage, between one and two years; that one morning in December, 1864, said Alexander and Mary Jane left the house and rode away, saying that they were going to Great Falls in said State to get married; that they returned at night, and Alexander introduced Mary Jane to her father and mother as his wife in the following language: “ Your daughter is my wife; she is now Mrs. Alexander; ” and that that night Mary Jane did not room with her former room-mate, but slept with Alexander. Mary Jane Dennett testified, in her deposition, in regard to her marriage with Alexander, that there was a ceremony, and they were pronounced man and wife; that she could not tell whether the person performing the ceremony was a clergyman; that she supposed at the time that he was ; that she supposed she was- married until Alexander left her; that she had got no certificate, and had now no doubt that the person performing the ceremony was “one of those awful spiritualists, free lovers,” but she did not know anything about it; and that she and Alexander lived together about nine years, she supposing she was his wife. Mary Jane, after the supposed marriage with Alexander, took charge of his young son, treating him as if his mother. Alexander introduced Mary Jane as his wife to their acquaintance; they attended church together as man and wife, and received visits from their pastor, who was a witness and testified to that fact. They also kept house as man and wife, and she was known and reputed as his wife from that time, and he was not known in Portsmouth to have had or to have any other wife until he left in 1868, when he took Mary Jane and his boy with him and went to Lewiston, Maine, where they also lived as man and wife; and, while in Maine, Alexander had a real estate transaction in which she was called upon to release her dower in the estate which he conveyed, and did so, receiving a portion of the purchase money as a consideration for the release; and this was as late as the year 1871 or 1872. There was also evidence tending to show that Emeroy Haven remained at her father’s house in Vermont, and died on March 7, 1866. There was also evidence tending to show that the petitioner, being then single, married Emory Ayres in 1860, and lived with him in Rhode Island until January 30,1866, when he died; that after his death she came to Newburyport to live; that in the latter part of 1866, Alexander came to work as a ship-carpenter, which was his trade, at Newburyport, and remained at work there during that year and the following year, being accustomed to return to Portsmouth on Saturday night, spending Sunday, as he said, with his child; that, while so working in Newburyport,. he made the acquaintance of the petitioner, and that acquaintance ripened into courtship, he always claiming to be an unmarried man, until September 11, 1867, on which day they were in due form married at Lynn, and then came to live as man and wife in Newburyport at the house of the wife, where they continued to live until June 23, 1868, at which time Mary Jane Dennett came to the house of the Alexanders when the husband and wife were at the table eating their meal, and said to the petitioner, in the presence of Alexander, “ I am as much Mrs. Alexander as you are, and have better claims to him,” to which the petitioner replied, “ I have a marriage certificate, show me yours; ” that thereupon Mary Jane Dennett burst into tears and left the house; that the petitioner said to Alexander, “ What does this mean? Is this woman your wife? Were you married to her when you married me ? ” He admitted that fact. She then said to him, “ Go, leave me, and don’t let me ever see you again.” Alexander then went into the house of a near neighbor, and, crying, said, “ I must go, or she will shut me out; I have another wife living.” And he went, and she never saw him or heard of him from that day until after this petition was filed in the Probate Court. The petitioner immediately applied to counsel in Newburyport, and stated to him the fact, and asked him if it was necessary to obtain a divorce, and he replied that, as her marriage with Alexander was void, there was no need of divorce proceedings; and thereupon she resumed the name of Ayres, and was thereafterwards known by that name until she married Randlett. There was also uncontradicted evidence tending to show that the petitioner had never heard of Emeroy Horton Haven, the first wife of Alexander, whether living or dead, until after the probate proceedings; that Alexander had never heard of his wife, whether alive or dead, from the time of his desertion of her until after the probate proceedings; and that Mary Jane Dennett had never heard of Mrs. Haven, nor whether she was living or dead, and that she did not know of the change of name by Alexander. There was also evidence tending to show that Alexander had represented, prior to his taking Miss Dennett to Great Falls, that he was a widower, and that his wife had died in Canada, leaving this child. There was also evidence tending to show that, after Alexander had left Newburyport never to return there, Mrs. Ayres continued to live there for more than twelve years, and in the latter part of the time made the acquaintance of Thomas L. Randlett, for many years a resident of Newburyport, and then unmarried, which acquaintance ripened into courtship, and they were married at Newburyport on January 8,1880, by Mr. Randlett’s pastor, the Rev. Dr. S. E. Spaulding, who testified to the subsequent married life of Randlett and his wife, in the following words: “ Mr. Randlett always spoke in the highest terms of Mrs. Randlett, formerly Mrs. Ayres, and said many times how happily they lived together.” Mrs. Randlett, being called as a witness, testified that, after Mr. Randlett made proposals of marriage, she stated to him all the facts in relation to her connection with Alexander, and told him to investigate them and satisfy himself about them, and to get legal advice if she ought to marry him, and if then he was satisfied and desired to marry her, she would marry him; that shortly afterwards Mr. Randlett called upon her, stating that he had fully investigated the relations between her and Alexander, and was entirely satisfied with her conduct; that he had consulted a lawyer upon the question whether he had a right to marry her, and that he had investigated the matter, and given an opinion that he had a right to marry her; that then she accepted him, and the marriage took place; that Mr. Randlett gave her the name of the lawyer whom he consulted, which name she gave, and no evidence was produced to control in any manner her statement. She also testified, and her evidence was not contradicted, that she had never heard of Alexander, whether he was alive or dead, since he left her house when she told him to go, nor could Mr. Randlett obtain any information of him. There was also evidence tending to show that Mr. Randlett died on July 13, 1883, and that at the time of his death she was recognized by the family as his widow, was asked by the administrator and the children to yield her right to administer to the administrator, and as the widow of Randlett signed the petition that Rice be appointed administrator; that in the proceedings before the Probate Court no intimation was made that she was not his widow, and the first that she knew there was any question upon the subject was upon reading the reason of the appeal.