Davidson v. Davidson [1921] ScotLR 275 (22 January 1921)

Davidson v. Davidson [1921] ScotLR 275 (22 January 1921)

The pursuer failed to prove that the ceremony of 27 December 1899 was intended by both parties to constitute a real and deliberate marriage. The subsequent conduct of the parties over twenty years, including the lack of cohabitation, absence of public recognition, and failure to assert marital status, was inconsistent with the existence of a marriage. The loss of corroborative evidence and delay in bringing the action further undermined the pursuer's case. Accordingly, the pursuer did not discharge the burden of proof required for a declarator of marriage.

Citation
[1921] ScotLR 275
Parties
Pursuer: Mrs Isabella Gauld or Davidson; Defenders: George Davidson and others (trustees, executors, and next-of-kin of John Davidson)
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
22 January 1921
Procedural Posture
Action of Declarator of Marriage / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor
Outcome
Pursuer's reclaiming motion refused; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary adhered to; defenders assoilzied (absolved) from the conclusions of the summons.
Legal Topics
Marriage, Irregular Marriage, Verba De Praesenti, Proof of Marriage, Subsequent Conduct, Declarator of Marriage
Family Law Marriage Irregular Marriage Verba De Praesenti Proof of Marriage Subsequent Conduct Declarator of Marriage

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Isabella Gauld or Davidson

Pursuer

George Davidson and others (trustees, executors, and next-of-kin of John Davidson)

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Action of Declarator of Marriage / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an irregular marriage was constituted by verba de praesenti between the pursuer and the deceased John Davidson
  2. 2 Whether the subsequent conduct of the parties discredited the alleged marriage and negated matrimonial intention

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer failed to prove that the ceremony of 27 December 1899 was intended by both parties to constitute a real and deliberate marriage. The subsequent conduct of the parties over twenty years, including the lack of cohabitation, absence of public recognition, and failure to assert marital status, was inconsistent with the existence of a marriage. The loss of corroborative evidence and delay in bringing the action further undermined the pursuer's case. Accordingly, the pursuer did not discharge the burden of proof required for a declarator of marriage.

Court Disposition

Pursuer's reclaiming motion refused; interlocutor of Lord Ordinary adhered to; defenders assoilzied (absolved) from the conclusions of the summons.

Orders

  • Pursuer's plea-in-law repelled
  • Defenders' plea-in-law sustained