University of Michigan v. McGuckin
Nebraska Supreme Court
Appeal from the district court for Douglas county. Heard below before Keysor, J. Rehearing of case reported in 62 Nebr., 489. Holcomb, J., dissenting. The fact of copulation after a promise per verba de futuro is simply evidence from which the court may presume a new promise or a promise de prcesenti; and the fact of living together is not itself marriage, but is simply evidence from which the court may presume that a promise was made.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the district court for Douglas county. Heard below before Keysor, J. Rehearing of case reported in 62 Nebr., 489. Holcomb, J., dissenting. The fact of copulation after a promise per verba de futuro is simply evidence from which the court may presume a new promise or a promise de prcesenti; and the fact of living together is not itself marriage, but is simply evidence from which the court may presume that a promise was made. This .presumption, which ordinarily would arise from continued copulation, in the case at bar, is overcome by the positive finding that no new promise was made…
1Opinion of the Court
Ames, C.
This'cause is resubmitted upon arguments and briefs upon a rehearing granted from a former decision in the *302same cause, the opinion in which was fthed on the 10th day of July, 1901. The case was submitted upon a record containing the pleadings and findings-of fact of the trial court, only.
The principal question discussed upon the reargument, and the only one with which we think it requisite to deal in this opinion, is that of the validity of the alleged marriage between the appellees Anna McG-uckin and Daniel L. McGuckin. The findings of fact relative to this inquiry are copied in the…
Also in this document: Dissent.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Maynard v. HillSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
3Cited by17 opinions
- Brisbin v. HuntingtonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1905
- Thomas v. MurphyCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1939
- State v. NewmanMontana Supreme Court · 1923
- Collins v. Hoag & Rollins, Inc.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1932
- Miller v. TOWNSEND LUMBER COMPANYMontana Supreme Court · 1968
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.