In re Estate of Newman

California Supreme Court Jun 6, 1899 No. S. F. No. 1623Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a wife's bigamous marriage and infidelity do not, under existing statutes, forfeit her right to letters of administration as a widow in her lawful husband's estate.

Issues

Whether a wife's bigamous marriage and infidelity constitute a forfeiture of her marital rights to her husband's estate.
Whether a probate decree from another state adjudging a woman to be the widow of a second husband estops her from claiming rights as the widow of her first husband.
Whether a petitioner's stated intent to remain in the state to administer an estate satisfies the residency requirement for letters of administration.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The rights of a widow in the estate of her husband cannot be questioned on the claim that during the life of her husband she was unfaithful to her vows.”

“She was shown to have been an unfaithful wife, and to have violated her marital obligation, but that does not tend to show lack of integrity within the meaning of the statute.”

Synopsis

Estates of Deceased Persons—Right of Widow to Administration— Bigamy—Forfeiture—Recognition of Marital Relation.—The rights of a widow in the estate of her husband cannot be questioned on the claim that during the life of her husband she was unfaithful to her vow’s; and her right, as widow, to administer upon his estate is not forfeited by her bigamous marriage to another man, and her previous administration upon the estate of the latter, and receiving an allowance therefrom as his widow, w'here it appears that after the death of the bigamous spouse, the relations between the husband and wife were continued with knowledge of the facts.

Id.—Administration of Estate of Bigamous Spouse—Decree in Rem— Estoppel.—The decree in rem in the administration of the estate of the bigamous spouse, was only conclusive as to the succession of his estate; and the marriage relation of the alleged widow of the bigamous spouse to her true husband was not part of the res then before the court. The decree created no estoppel upon her to show that she wras the widow of her deceased husband, in subsequently petitioning for letters of ad- ■ ministration of bis estate.

Id.—Bigamous Marriage in Another State—Law as to Cohabitation. A bigamous- marriage contracted under the law’s of another state, followed by cohabitation for a required period of years in such state, is not rendered valid because such laws declare that cohabitation of the parties therein for such period is proof of marriage. Such laws assume that the parties are competent to marry; and such marriage, if legalized in that state, would not be recognized in this state as a dissolution of the formes marriage.

Id.—Grant of Letters to Widow—Residence—Finding—Intention.— The residence of the widow in this state will be sustained in favor of a grant of letters of administration to her, if the court finds the fact of such residence, and of her intention to remain in California, and make it her future home, notwithstanding her testimony that she came to this state because her husband left an estate here, and would not have come if he had not left such estate.

Id.—“Integrity” of Widow—Construction of Code.—The fact that the widow was an unfaithful wife and violated her marriage obligation does not tend to show lack of “integrity” within the meaning of section 1350 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

THE COURT. This is a contest for letters of administration. There were three petitioners: the public administrator, L. M. Cutting, a cousin of the deceased, and Rose A. Newman, widow of deceased. Letters were granted to the widow and Cutting appeals.

Rose A. Newman and the deceased intermarried in New Hampshire, November, 1856. He was then nineteen years of age and she was sixteen. Within a very short time after the marriage he came with his father to California. There was, however, no desertion, as the parties continued to correspond at least up to 1862, recognizing in all their letters their marital relation. He did not prosper in California, but occasionally sent her small sums of money. In 1864 she, knowing that her husband was still alive, and that he had not deserted her, and although, as she testified, she received a letter from him about a year before, went through the forms of marriage with one Col-burn. She continued to live with Colburn in this adulterous and criminal relation for fifteen years, when Colburn died. She had a daughter by this bigamous union, born in 1866. Colburn left an estate which apparently went to the child and petitioner, as his widow, administered upon it and received an allowance from the estate as his widow.

In 1883 petitioner, having heard that her husband was still alive, had the hardihood to write to him, and he, in ignorance of her criminal career, at once responded, recognizing his marital obligations. In this letter he said: "I was surprised to hear [691]from you after waiting so long for an answer to my last letter (about twenty years). I sent you some money to come out here on and never got any answer. I have been looking for you ever since. You could have found out that I was here if you had written to me instead of to the postmaster.....Why did you not write before and let me know that you wanted help? I would have helped you. I wish you had come out here when I sent for you. 1 think it would have been better for you if you had.....Write and let me know if you received that money 1 sent you to come out on. If so, why did you not come? (I believe it was in 1864.) Inclosed you will find ten dollars,” et cetera.

It is evident that he had never had any thought of deserting her, and, unsuspicious of wrong on her part, sent her money while she was living in adultery with Colburn. After this letter they continued to correspond for about nine years. She says that she informed him by letter of her bigamous marriage, but his letters, put in evidence by her, disclose no such knowledge. Finally, about 1892, Newman ceased to write, why is not made to appear.

In re Estate of Newman

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief