Fidanque v. Fidanque

The testimony in this ease fails to establish that at any particular time, per verba de prcesenti, a definite common-law contract of marriage was entered into between the parties. This is necessary undér the Florida law which here governs (Chaves v. Chaves, 79 Fla. 602; McClish v. Rankin, 153 Fla. 324; Thompson v. Harris, 148 Fla. 329). Since both parties were before the court and testified on this precise point, the fact that, for obvious reasons of public propriety, there was a holding out to the general public, such as here occurred, that the parties had been married, does not of itself…