Oswald v. Oswald

PattisoN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appeal in this case is from a decree sustaining the ■demurrer and dismissing the bill filed by the appellant, Henry M. Oswald, against the appellee, Mary 0. Oswald, ■asking for the annulment of the marriage between them, solemnized on the 12th day of July, 1913, at Cleveland, Ohio. The bill alleges that the appellee, prior to the time of her marriage to the appellant, represented to him that she had been previously" manned but that her husband was then dead; that believing such representation to be true, and relying upon it, he agreed to many and did marry the •appellee, the marriage services being performed by a priest of the Roman Catholic Church.

That after the marriage they lived together as man and wife until 1922, when he learned that her former husband was still living; that as soon as he learned of this fact, he confronted the appellant with if and she then admitted that her former husband was still alive and that she had made a misrepresentation in- ³¹⁵ saying to him that he was dead, although she at the time told him she had been divorced from her husband, and this fact was shown to be true by a copy of a decree divorcing theng filed as an exhibit with the bill. The bill further alleges that, upon learning that her former husband was not dead but still alive, he told her that the Roman Catholic Church, of which he was. a, devout member, did not recognize their marriage .as valid, a fact which she already knew; whereupon the appellee left him and has not lived with him since. It is further alleged in the bill that the representations so made by the appellee were not only false but she knew them to be false when made, that they were made for the purpose of his acting upon them, that he believed them to be true and acted thereon in good faith to his great detriment, in that he is denied the full privilege of his church and has suffered in mind and body, because of such marriage contract in which he was induced to enter because of the misrepresentations of the appellee. Although the appellee’s former husband was not dead at the time of her marriage to the appellant, she, as a result of her divorce from her former husband,, could at such time enter into a valid contract of marriage; therefore, if her marriage to the appellant is to be held invalid, it must be so hold because of the misrepresentations, made by her to. him.

WThile marriage is a civil contract, it is, as said by Story, Conflict of Laws, paragraph 108 n., “something more than a mere contract. It is rather to he deemed an institution of society, founded upon the consent and contract of the parties,, and in this view it has some peculiarities in its nature, character, operation and extent of obligation, different, from what belong to ordinary contracts.” In Brown v. Scott, 140 Md. 266 , the same idea is expressed. Judge Offutt, speaking for the Court in that case, said: “In contracts, of marriage there is an interest involved above and beyond that of the immediate parties. Public policy requires that marriage should not he lightly set aside.” ³¹⁶ A marriage may be annulled by a court of equity in this State when it is procured by abduction, terror, fraud or duress, or when the fraud complained of relates to essential matters affecting the health,'or well being of the parties themselves.

Brown v. Scott, supra,, and LeBrun v. LeBrun, 55 Md. 496 . But in many of these cases the difficulty is in determining when the representations made or the acts charged amount to fraud which may authorize the courts to decree the annulment. In Brown v. Scott , a number of cases are referred to, showing the determination of the courts upon the facts in each of those cases, but in none of them are the facts altogether similar to those in this case. In 9 Ruling Case Law, sec. 70, it is said a “concealment of a prior marriage which has been dissolved by death of or divorce from the first spouse is not considered such fraud as will invalidate or affect the second marriage.” See cases cited thereunder.