McVicker v. McVicker
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
PER CURIAM.
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.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 7 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.