Q. #1). Why did the court in the Hargrave case (Text p. 173) find that Karen Hargrave was not, in fact, married to the decedent, Duval?
A: The Oklohoma Supreme Court emphzised the most important element in common law marriage, particularly in the case Hargrave v. Ducal-Couetil. Karen Hargrave’s own testimony failed to prove a “clear intent to marry.” To decided Hargrave case, the OK Supreme Court cited Brooks, and earlier case decided by the very court: “To constitute a valid ‘common-law marriage,’ it is necessary that there should be an actual and mutual agreement to enter into a matrimonial relation, permanent and exclusive of all others, beween parties capable in law of making such contract, consumated by their cohabitation as man and wife. A merely promise of future marriage, followed by illicit relations, is not, in itself, sufficient to constitute such marriage.”
Q. What rule of law emerged from your reading of this case regarding the existence of a common law marriage?
A: To constitute a legal marriage, parties must prove three elements:
1. At least 18 years old
2. Live together in the state having common-law marriage jurisdiction
3. Introduce, hold themselves out to others as married couple, husband-wife
4. Intend, agree to be married.
It’s no misunderstanding what the Oklohoma Supreme Court clearly emphasized:…show more content… 587. Bargain to Change Essential Obligation of Marriage: “A gargain between married persons or persons contmeplating marriage to change the essential incidents of marriage is illegal.” The Court further cited two cases, Garlock v Garlock, 18 N.E 2d 521 (NY 1939), and Franch v McAnarney, 195 N.E. 714 (Mass. 1935) and concluded that “a provision releasing the busband from his duty to support his wife in a contract between married persons, or those about to be married, except in connection with a pre-exsisting or contemplated immediate separation, makes the contract