Shoro v. Shoro
Supreme Court of Vermont
PetitxoN to annul' a marriage contract under section 2849 of tbe Revised Laws. Trial by court at September Term, Rut-land County Court, 1887, Rowell, J., presiding. Petition dismissed as a matter of law. Section 2349 R. L. is as follows : ‘ ‘ Tbe marriage contract may be annulled when * * * or when tbe consent of either party was obtained by force or fraud.” Tbe exceptions stated that “ tbe petitioner bad tbe alternative of going to jail or of marrying tbe petitioner.”
Read the full summary
PetitxoN to annul' a marriage contract under section 2849 of tbe Revised Laws. Trial by court at September Term, Rut-land County Court, 1887, Rowell, J., presiding. Petition dismissed as a matter of law. Section 2349 R. L. is as follows : ‘ ‘ Tbe marriage contract may be annulled when * * * or when tbe consent of either party was obtained by force or fraud.” Tbe exceptions stated that “ tbe petitioner bad tbe alternative of going to jail or of marrying tbe petitioner.” Tbe other facts are sufficiently stated in tbe opinion. cited Scbolu. Dom. Rel. p. 37; 1 Bisb. Mar. & Div. (4th ed.) s. 211;…
1Opinion of the Court
Tbe opinion of the court was delivered by
Ross, J.
This is a petition to have tbe marriage solemnized between tbe parties annulled, alleging among other things that the petitioner’s consent was obtained by force and fraud. It comes to this court on tbe facts found by tbe County Court, and tbe exceptions of the petitioner to tbe refusal of tbe County Court to annul tbe marriage.
*269We have given the matter somewhat careful attention, both because the marriage contract is one in which the public generally is interested, and because no attorney has appeared for the petitionee.
The controlling facts…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Sartwell v. HortonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1856
- Hoyt v. DeweySupreme Court of Vermont · 1878
3Cited by2 opinions
- Harrison v. HarrisonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1939
- Newman v. SiglerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1930