Samuelson v. Samuelson

Bond, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The complainant in a bill in equity for annulment of a marriage appeals from the refusal of the relief, and a decree ⁶⁴⁰ dismissing her bill. The contention of the complainant was that the marriage, although valid in form, and solemnized by her full, free consent before a minister of the Christian religion, was entered into subject to an agreement of the parties that it should be without effect unless they should subsequently have a second ceremony before a Hebrew rabbi, and the defendant denied this. And the questions raised are first, that of the fact, and second, that of law — whether parties can enter into a marriage subject to such an agreement.

The question of law is a serious one; courts which have had to consider it have held that parties, to a marriage contract lawfully and completely solemnized cannot modify its effect, postpone its consummation, or lessen its obligations, by private agreements between themselves. Mirizio v. Mirizio, 242 N. Y. 74 ; Hills v. States 61 Neb. 589 . There is, at least, much force in the answer of the Nebraska court that, if such a nullifying agreement is to receive the sanction of the courts, then marriage can be dissolved by the parties themselves, and all that would be necessary to dissolve it would be, not a decree of court, but a simple agreement prior to the ceremony that it should not be binding on either party. “Neither public policy nor public conscience,” that court concluded, “could suffer such a doctrine to live.” But it is a question which need not be answered in this case, because, in our opinion, the complainant has failed to prove that there was such an agreement or private reservation. The parties were young friends, both Hebrews, and in 1924, before the marriage, had developed an affection for each other, and become especially close companions, although the relationship was interrupted somewhat.

She was born in February, 1907, he some few years earlier. In May of 1925 she made a visit of ten days in Virginia, and seems to have distressed him by doing so, although she wrote him a series of affectionate lettei’s. And her going was the cause of a partial suspension of the relation between the parties during the succeeding summer. She spent July and August at a girls’ camp.

They met again in October, and on the day after their meeting drove together to Alexandria, Vir ⁶⁴¹ ginia, to be married. Tbe young man went into tbe court bouse, there to obtain a marriage license, while she waited, but found that without tbe consent of the parents it could not be obtained for a girl under twenty-one years of age; and that effort to marry failed. A week of resumed, close relationship followed, and at the end of that time the couple drove to Ellicott City, in Howard County, obtained tbe necessary marriage license at tbe court bouse, then stopped at the house of a Christian minister to whom they were directed in response to their inquiries, and were married in due, legal form. A wedding ring was used, and the complainant after the ceremony hung it around her neck, bn a ribbon, and wore it there, concealed under her dress.

It was agreed that the marriage should be kept secret for some time and some money was paid to have knowledge of it withheld from, the newspapers. And the wife returned to the home of her parents. The marriage was never otherwise consummated. At about the end of November, there was a controversy over her going out iu the company of another young man against the defendant’s objection, and this brought an exposure of the marriage.

Tbe young woman shortly after declared that “all was off,” and tbe present suit for