Hoese v. Hoese
Supreme Court of Iowa
1Opinion of the Court
Moeling, J.-
We find ourselves unable to bold that the plaintiff has proved a mutual agreement between herself and the defendant to presently assume toward each other the relationship of marriage. We shall, therefore, limit our discussion to the evidence bearing on this subject. For our more recent cases on the subject see In re Estate of Medford, 197 Iowa 76; Hess v. Hess, 191 Iowa 52; Love v. Love, 185 Iowa 930; Pegg v. Pegg, 138 Iowa 572; Brisbin v. Huntington, 128 Iowa 166. Common-law marriages do exist. Concubinage also exists. That the plaintiff was employed at first by defendant as a…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Brisbin v. HuntingtonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1905
- Pegg v. PeggSupreme Court of Iowa · 1908
- Love v. LoveSupreme Court of Iowa · 1919
- In re Estate of MedfordSupreme Court of Iowa · 1924
- Hess v. HessSupreme Court of Iowa · 1921
3Cited by6 opinions
- Boehm v. RohlfsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1937
- Gammelgaard v. GammelgaardSupreme Court of Iowa · 1956
- In Re Long's EstateSupreme Court of Iowa · 1960
- In Re Estate of MalliSupreme Court of Iowa · 1967
- State v. LawsonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1969
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.