Sullivan v Sullivan, falsely called Oldacre
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 June 1818 |
| Date | 11 June 1818 |
| Court | Consistory Court |
English Reports Citation: 161 E.R. 728
IN THE CONSISTORY COURT
Affirmed, 1819, 3 Phill. 45. Referred to, Moss v. Moss, [1897] P. 265.
[238} sullivan v. sullivan, falsely called oldacre. llth June, 1818.- Nullity of marriage, by reason of publication of banns in false names, not supported in fact [Affirmed, 1819, 3 Phill. 45. Referred to, Moss v. Moss, [1897] P. 265 ] This was a suit of nullity of marriage, by reason of the publication of banns not being made in the true names of the parties. The suit was brought by the father of the husband, as his natural guardian. The libel stated the circumstances, in which it was alleged that the marriage was effected by artifices and misrepresentations, and m a clandestine manner, and in a parish to which neither of the parties belonged, and entirely unknown to the father of the minor; and that it was celebrated by banns under a false designation of the woman. The cause was argued much at length by Dr. Swabey, Dr. Phillimore, and Dr. Lushington, on the part of Mr Sullivan; by Dr. Stoddart, Dr. Jenner, and Dr. Dodson, contra. Judgment-Sir William Scott This proceeding is instituted by the Right Honourable John Sullivan, to annul the marriage of his son John Augustus Sullivan with Maria Oldacre, otherwise Maria Holmes Oldacre, which marriage was contracted and celebrated under the following circumstances:-The son John Augustus Sullivan was born on the 19th of October, 1798, and having left Eton school, was resident during the latter part of 1815, and beginning of 1816, at his father's seat, called Richings Lodge, in Buckinghamshire, under the care of a private tutor preparing for the university. In the [239] year 1815 he began to hunt with some hounds (which have made no small noise in the world), called the Berkeley hounds, at that time under the management of a Mr. Thomas Oldacre, who lived at Gerard's-cross, seven miles distant 8 HAG. COff.lte SULLIVAN V. SULLIVAN 729 from Etchings. The conseqnence of these pursuits, on the part of young Mr. Sullivan, was to visit frequently afc the house of that person, who appears to have lived with hia family, in a style of hospitality, and reception of company, not very common in such a situation of life; and with a character free, as far as the evidence discloses, from any general reproach. Th yoHg man here became acquainted with Maria Oldacre, a daughter of this person, who wa* just three years older than Mr. Sullivan, being born in October, 1795. The young woman was illegitimate, her mother, whose maiden name was Holmes, not being married tiB. four months after her birth; but she was baptized as the legitimate child ef the parties, and never bore, either at baptism, or on any occasion that is shewn, any other names than those of Maria Oldacre, by which alone she was known. The acquaintance between these two young persons ripened into intimacy, and the visits f the young man became more and more frequent. Of all this intercourse his father, Mr. Joan Sullivan, was ignorant. With the misfortune incident to most men of business, the duties of a considerable office in London left him little time personally to superintend the conduct of his son, and he had therefore transferred this care to a tutor. In the present instance, the gandet equis canibusque was not custode remote; for the tutor accompanied his pupil occasionally on his hunting excursions, and [240] likewise ob several (it dods not exactly appear how many) of the visits just noticed. Oa one occasion,, the young gentleman took with him two of his sisters ; but still no information respecting the conduct of his son was derived to Mr. John Sullivan, either from the tutor or from any other person. id June and July, 1816, the intimacy having ripened into attachment, Mr. John Augustus Sullivan- caused banns of marriage to be delivered at two churches, namely St. Andrew's Holborn, and St. Olave's Southwark, in the latter of which they were regularly published, by the names of John Augustus Sullivan and Maria Holmes Oldacre. The parties were afterwards married at the church of St. Olave's, to which parish they were both aliens; and they were both minors, she being within three months of twenty-one, he of eighteen. la the course of the ensuing week, he informed his father of what had taken place. Mr. John Salkvan received the news with great surprise, and with a. degree of affliction, of which there is no reason, either from the nature of the thing itself, or from any circumstance that occurred in his behaviour at the tame, to doubt the sincerity. However, upon further reflection of his own, and advice of his friends, and under the impression that the marriage was irreversible, he and his family bent under the blow, became to a certain degree reconciled, and performed some acts of civility and kindness, which, however, were soon suspended. The present proceedings were instituted by Mr. John Sullivan, in the first place, against Mr. Thomas Oldacre, as the guardian of his sup-[241]-posed legitimate daughter; and, after her coming of age, the proceedings were continued against herself. These facts are produced in evidence, upon the only two pleas that have been taken in the caste-one alleging the facts on which Mr. John Sullivan asserts the invalidity- the olher, in wbaeh she maintains her marriage rights; and most of these facts are so little eontrowrted that they may be deemed common to both parties, as the foundations on which their adverse positions of law are constructed. The birth of the parties, theraetual celebration of the marriage in a church to which they were strangers, after a proclamatiom of banns therein, in which the name of Holmes was for the first time interposed in the description of Maria Oldaere-the entire want of consent on the part of Mr. Sullivan's father to the marriage, any further than the law may imply a consent from this unopposed publication. This is all clear and undisputed ground, to substantiate which it is unnecessary for me to apply evidence, for nobody denies it. To thft evidence of one fact I shall, for another reason, not pay much particular attention-that which is brought to prove Mr. John Sullivan's reconciliation to the marriage; for if this evidence were ever so strong and ummpeached, it could prove at the outside nothing more than capricious conduct on his part. It could not affirm the validity of the marriage; for if that marriage were invalid for want^of his consent at the time it was solemnized, no consent given afterwards could corroborate it. It mutt be a precedent or a contemporary consent^ [242J otherwise the marriage is radically and incurably bad. The fact, however, is not without an explanation. For it appears that this apparent approbation of the marriage took place at a time when Mr. Sullivan con- 730 SULLIVAN 17. SULLIVAN 2 HAG. CON. S43. sidered the marriage to be irreversible. He was afterwards otherwise advised-and then he began the present attempt to break the connexion. It is likewise true that an interrogatory has been rather unfortunately put, on the behalf of Mr. John Sullivan, which insinuates that, at the time of his reconciliation, he believed her character and conduct unimpeachable; but that, finding he had been misled, he put an end to all intercourse with her, and instituted the present suit. Mr Forbes, to whom that question is put, knows nothing at all of any such matter, but puts the change of conduct on a change of opinion respecting the legal question. Certainly, if any such discovery had been made, it might naturally have augmented the father's desire to overthrow the marriage, though it would have been perfectly impossible ta do it on the mere proof of such a discovery alone; for the marriage, if originally good, had got beyond the reach of all effect of character and conduct At the same time, I am bound to discharge a debt of justice by saying that there is nothing in the evidence before me which, in the slightest degree, impeaches that character That in a house where many young gentlemen resorted for the pursuit of field-spertSj things might occasionally pass, not much calculated to cherish habits of feminine delicacy and reserve, is not im-[243]-probable, but I see nothing bordering on impropriety upon her part. Her parents are not inattentive to that matter. Her father expresses a disapprobation of her riding alone with young Mr. Sullivan ; her mother desires him to write no more letters to her daughter ò she is sought in marriage by a person of her own family...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
P.F. v G. O'M. (otherwise G.F.) (Nullity: Consent)
...FAMILY LAW 189–190 SWIFT V KELLY 1835 3 KNAPP 257 WAKEFIELD V MCKAY 1 PHILLIM 134 EWING V WHEATLEY 2 HAGG CONS 175 SULLIVAN V SULLIVAN 2 HAGG CONS 238 BISHOP ON MARRIAGE & DIVORCE (1891) (NEW YORK) CONSTITUTION ART 41.3.1 F V L (ORSE F) 1991 1 IR 40 MATRIMONIAL CAUSES & MARRIAGE LAW (IRL)......
-
Sheffield City Council v E and S
...or non-disclosure—generally speaking it cannot. The distinction is brought out very clearly by Sir William Scott in Sullivan v Sullivan (orse Oldacre) (1818) 2 Hagg Con 238 at p 248 in a passage cited with approval by the President in Moss v Moss (orse Archer) [1897] P 263 at p 269: "I say ......
-
L.B. v T.MacC.
...no disparity of fortune or mistake as to the qualities of the person will impeach the vinculum of marriage"; and in Sullivan v. Sullivan 2 Hagg Cons. 238 "the strongest cases you could establish of the most deliberate plot, leading to a marriage the most unseemly in all disproportions of ra......
-
Hopwood, Ian v Cuthbertson, Lynn
...those are the true names, unless they have been overridden by the use of the names assumed and generally accredited’ (Sullivan v Sullivan 2 Hag Con 238 at 249, 161 ER 728 at 733). 47 A search of public records would easily establish that the respondent assumed the surname ‘Cuthbertson’ thro......
-
TRICKED INTO MARRIAGE.
...in Catholic doctrine, see, eg, William F Cahill, 'Fraud and Error in the Canon Law of Marriage' (1955) 1(2) Catholic Lawyer 83. (25) (1818) 2 Hag Con 238; 161 ER 728, (26) Ibid 728 (headnote). (27) Ibid 736-7. (28) Moss (n 21) 278-9 (Jeune P). (29) See, eg, Reynolds v Reynolds, 85 Mass 605 ......