Chambers v. Dickson
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In Error. THIS was an action of dower unde nihil habet brought by Elizabeth Chambers, and the parties went to trial in the . Court of Common Pleas of Indiana county, On the issue of ne unques accouples, ode. The plaintiff offered to prove “ cohabitation and reputation of marriage with Moses Cham- “ bers, for ten years before the year 1776but the evidence was rejected by the Court.
Read the full summary
In Error. THIS was an action of dower unde nihil habet brought by Elizabeth Chambers, and the parties went to trial in the . Court of Common Pleas of Indiana county, On the issue of ne unques accouples, ode. The plaintiff offered to prove “ cohabitation and reputation of marriage with Moses Cham- “ bers, for ten years before the year 1776but the evidence was rejected by the Court. The plaintiff excepted to the' Court’s opinion, and the Court sealed a bill of exceptions,. The only question is, whether, on the issue of ne unques accouples, reputation of the marriage be sufficient. We contend,…
1Opinion of the Court
Tilghman C. J.
(After stating the case.) The ground Of the Court’s -opinión -was, that proof of the actual marriage was necessary. In England, when an issue -of this kind is joined between persons of the established church, it is decid*477ed by a certificate from the bishop of the-diócése, in which the marriage is alleged to have been celebrated. But where the parties are dissenters from the established religion, the trial' is by jury. Whether in that case proof of the actual marriage is required, does ■ not clearly appear by the cases which have been cited in the argument. It is not pretended,…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Forney v. HallacherSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1822