| OCR Text |
Show SEALED WIFE HAS DOWER RIGHTS Supreme Court of Utah So Decides. Reaffirms Its Former Decision De-cision in Parks-Hilton Case. Also Confirms the Order of Distribution Distribu-tion Heretofore Made by the Supremo Court. Tha Supremo court, in an opinion handed hand-ed down yesterday, reaffirms Its former decision In tho celebrated Parks-Hilton case, confirming the title of Mrs. Hilton, the "sealed" wife of Dr. John ft Parks, to dower rights In the estate of Dr. Parks and also confirming the order of distribution distribu-tion heretofore made by tho Supreme court Tho opinion was written by chief Jus-tlco Jus-tlco Bartch and concurred in by Justice M't'arty and DlMrn t Judge A i met r.uig. fotilni,' with the Supreme court In tho case. Tho opinion Is Interesting; from several standpoints. It brings into the rase the testlmoi ..f President Joseph V. Smith In the Sm.'..t Inquiry before the Senate committee in Woshlngt n, on tho subject ol celestial marriages and also refers to suits which arc being pn-xsod by Mrs, Hilton against persons who purchased property of Dr. Pat ks without her joining in tho deeds. Tho opinion in full is ns follows: Here Is the Opinion. In the case of IIIRon v Roylanee. t", ptah 129. It was. Inter alia, held and decided that the petitioner heroin, who wo tho plaintiff therein, was tho lawful wife of John R. Park, and that UPOO hla death "she became his lawful widow, and entitled to her sharo In his estate aw such widow " The final Judgment Judg-ment and docreo In that CSSS wn.s '-nteie.t by the lower court pursuant to tho mandate of this court. Tho petitioner then presented the petition herein to the court proving that One-third In value Of all the tents. Issues and profits arising from the decedent s real property, prop-erty, olnro Ids death, be distributed nnd set apart to her, nnd that tho court partition and set apart to her ils her separate estate, an Undivided one-third Interest In value la fee of nil th real pr-.perty br longing t the estnte, fren and eh-ar ( nni all debts of th deceased At the hearing tho prayer of the petition won granted, commissioners In partition worn appointed, ap-pointed, their report, setting opart one-third of the property to the widow confirmed, and a decree entered accordingly. Thla appeal la from that decree and Judgment Me.niage Status Petitioner Attacked. Tho counsel f.r the executor and appellant ngaln attack tly marriage status of the petitioner, peti-tioner, and strenuously Insist that she Is not the lawful Wife of the deceased, and that this court wrongfully held In tho Roylanee case that a "s-allr.g ceremony.' performed In Ol e.llence to the nllcg.-d revealed doctrine of the Moi mon church, was lit effect a marriage ceremony at common low In their zeal, to havo this court reverse Its formr holding In Mile.tnntl.ilh th- 'nn.. on 1 nw hold that n '"allng ceremony" does not necessarily, necessar-ily, and did not In the cn of the petitioner, establish the marriage etatUSi they endeavor to brush aside the law of the case. They again refer to the fn.-t. and discuss the ques tions of lew which were before us on the former appeal, and which were then considered consid-ered and decided with that care and deliberation deliber-ation which the Importance of the oasi demanded de-manded They not only refer to and ngaln discuss the facts disclosed by the record on that appeal but, in violation of the established estab-lished practice, go outside of what would h a proper record, refer to and discuss evidence Introduced In nn entirely different CSSS, which has not yet been before, us. and even resort to evidence Introduced bofore the Committee on Privileges and Blecftbna in the Sennto of the t'nlted States, at the hearing In the contest to test the light of Senator Reed Smoot to retain his seat In tho t'nlted States Senate i ounsel ought to understand that such ei-dence ei-dence aliunde, can be of no avail on this appeal. Rut even If we were to thiow down tho bars and consider this class of testimony, having no proper place in the record, still. In our Judgment, the correctness of our former for-mer decision, would not be shaken In the leart. Sealing Ceremony. ctounsel for the appellant, however, with reference to this court's Interpretation of the I'rmi "sealing" nnl "sealing ceremony." say The errors Into Which the court has fallen are consequent upon the adoption of tho Idea that the works from which quotations nre made form the onlv doctrines or rules of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints In reference to man logo while tho fact Is that all of them relate simply to ono feature of the marriage ordinance', of thnt church, num. ly. the sealing of living persons In marriage mar-riage for tlmo and eternity " In Answer Thereto. In answer to this It may he observed thst counsel, even now. have referred us to no othr works than those examined and considered consid-ered on I ho fomier occasion, nor havo they referred us to any other rovelatlon of tho Mormon church, on tho subject of matrimony, than the one construed In our former opinion; nor. if we now wore to consider the extrlnslo evidence hereinbefore referred to, would, under un-der any reasonable Interpretation of the 'revelation, 'reve-lation, that evidence, sustain their contention, for It appears therefrom that 'sealing for eternity ' Is, except In very raro Instances, performed only in cases where one of the parties Is dead, and not where, as here both were living Joseph Smith's Testimony. From that testimony. It appears that a question ques-tion woe propounded to the president of the church, by the chairman of tho Senate com-mltteo com-mltteo dn the case of Senator Smoot. as follows: fol-lows: "Is the sealing for eternity ever permitted per-mitted hitwe.n two living mortals"" To this Preslden Smith, who, according to th'-. ten. t of the Mormon church, holds the koy to ilm power to solemnize marriages, answered' i have heard Mr Chairman, of ono .r two In-slanceu In-slanceu of that kind." If such n witness the '.ry head Of tie.- church. In his lifelong experience, ex-perience, has heard of but one or two Instances In-stances of sealing for eternity between the living, how tan U bo said that such seaiine Is a rule of the church, or that this court litis fallen Into error in holding that a 'sealing ceremony." such as la expressly authorized by What Is claimed to be the revested law and performed by a duly authorised officer of tho church in the ordlnar manner. :s a "marriage "mar-riage ceremony" valid at common law and creates the marriage status n thus seems clar that. I' we wer lo violate the familiar rules of evidence and consider tho class of tsstlmonv referred t. It could not avail the appellant. Decision Again Confiimed. Although we have adverted, for the sak of argument, t.. matters not properlv In this record, wo havo found nothlne which mlll-tatta mlll-tatta against the construction iilnce.j upon the reelatU.n n.jr niralnst the doctrine announced an-nounced In tho Roylancj case, and w. there, for acaln affirm that decision. The, fact thnt th? petitioner herein has brought or mav Institute, suits ngnlnBt third (.Arties, who purchased pur-chased real property from the deceased In his lifetime U) recover an Interest lr suet, rAl property, fhe Dot hulnu Joined In the conveyances, con-veyances, cannot nffert her marrlafe status Whether she can now maintain such suits aeuinst Innocent third parties, who mde such purchases Ignorant of tho status existing between be-tween her and the vendor, or whether her col luct during th- lifetime of the vendor u-ai such ns t" estop her from maintaining them are eueetlona which we do not deite the same not belnx material to this declilon ' Such questions can only be determined upon proper pleadlnge and proof There Is nothing In this COae sh .wing nn estoppel The decre,. Judgment challenged by thlj appeal are but the result of our own mandate. Nor do we find anv oi..r In the proceedings for the partition par-tition of the ral property The Judgment Is, therefore, affirmed. with costs. |
