use. But it better be a good one. I could think of a good one, but I don't think you would like it. I wouldn't like to get sucked in again.'
In the case of Brooke v. Brooke, 60 Md. 524, plaintiff and defendant were married and the marriage was consummated. Defendant was reported to have stated to plaintiff that 'I will marry you, but understand, I will never live with you.' It was shown that defendant never acknowledged the plaintiff as his wife, that she acquiesced in this arrangement, even to the extent of continuing to use her maiden name in all her transactions, but when called upon the Maryland court held that this was a good marriage.
While it is true that it has been held that if either party enters into the marriage contract with an undisclosed intention of not performing, and thereafter refuses and persists in refusing to perform, such party is guilty of fraud going to the essence of the marriage relation, and the other party is entitled to have the marriage annulled ( Hyslop v. Hyslop, 241 Ala. 223, 2 So.2d 443; Bomer v. Edsall, 90 N.J.Eq. 299, 106 A. 646; Bragg v. Bragg, 219 Cal. 715, 28 P.2d 1046), nevertheless, there is no such showing here. In the case under consideration, the parties took out a marriage license one day, were married the next day, lived together as man and wife for the following two days and perhaps, on one other occasion, following which the husband went back to the Navy and decided that he did not want to continue the relationship.
As was stated by the Court in the case of Samuelson v. Samuelson, 155 Md. 639, 642, 142 A. 97, 99: ' * * * the case seems to be one, not of an uncompleted, qualified marriage, but of marriage taken more lightly than the law permits, and now repented. * * * It is not to be expected that this will be the last instance of hasty, impulsive marriage, but the recurrence of such things seems to render it none the less necessary for the law to insist that marriages shall stand, and not be nullified, except with caution, and only upon clear, satisfactory proof of recognized grounds of nullification. The courts are not authorized to annul them merely because it may seem well for the particular parties before them.' (Citing Maryland cases.)
It follows that the petition for annulment should be dismissed.
Counsel appointed by the Court to represent the defendant will prepare and present promptly an appropriate order.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.