Inhabitants of Guilford v. Habitants of Oxford
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was an action of assumpsit to recover the expense of relief and maintenance, furnished, by the plaintiffs, to Rhoda Bryan and her infant child, alleged to be paupers, having a legal settlement in the town of Oxford. The case was as follows. Alanson Bryan, the husband of Rhoda, was, at the time of his intermarriage with her, and still is, a settled inhabitant of Oxford. Before the marriage and until that time, she was an inhabitant of Guilford, or Walling-ford.
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit to recover the expense of relief and maintenance, furnished, by the plaintiffs, to Rhoda Bryan and her infant child, alleged to be paupers, having a legal settlement in the town of Oxford. The case was as follows. Alanson Bryan, the husband of Rhoda, was, at the time of his intermarriage with her, and still is, a settled inhabitant of Oxford. Before the marriage and until that time, she was an inhabitant of Guilford, or Walling-ford. The marriage took place in October 1828 ; and in March following, she was delivered, at New-IIaven, of a col-oured child,…
1Opinion of the Court
Hosmek, Ch. J.
The defendants insist, that the marriage, having been obtained by fraud, was void ab initio, and that by the act of the General Assembly, it was ipso facto avoided ; of consequence, that the paupers were not inhabitants of Oxford. On the other hand, the plaintiffs contend, that the paupers were inhabitants of O.iford, the marriage not being void ab initio, and the act of divorce not being retroactive.
The case presents three questions for decision. First, Was the marriage valid or void? Secondly, If valid, did the decree of divorce avoid it ab initio, or only in futuro ? And…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Barber v. RootMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1813
- Starr v. PeaseSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1831
- Benton v. BentonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1803
3Cited by3 opinions
- Woodhouse v. Woodhouse Et Ux.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1925
- Gardner v. Board of County CommissionersSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1874
- Woodhouse v. Woodhouse Et Ux.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1925