Legal Opinion

Matter of Estate of Murnion

Montana Supreme Court

Decided August 28, 1984No. 83-385Published

1Dissent · HaswellChief Justice Haswell

I question the trial court’s legal conclusion that the evidence supports a finding of common law marriage.

We have traditionally phrased our test of the existence of a common-law marriage in terms of consent, habit and repute. Cohabitation with habit and repute are merely the means of proving the first, and primary, element of any marriage — consent.

“. . . the consent, whether in express words, or implied from conduct, must always be given with such an intent on the part of each of the parties that marriage cannot be said to steal upon them unawares. One cannot become married unwittingly or…

Also in this document: Dissent · Harrison.

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Travers v. ReinhardtSupreme Court of the United States · 1907
  2. Howard v. KellyMississippi Supreme Court · 1916
  3. Clark v. FieldSupreme Court of Vermont · 1841
  4. Welch v. All PersonsMontana Supreme Court · 1927
  5. State v. NewmanMontana Supreme Court · 1923

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API