
    Edward Everett, App'lt, v. Georgie Lillian Morrison, Resp't.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
    
    
      Filed May 8, 1893.)
    
    1. Mabbiage—Validity.
    A ceremonial marriage, performed by a clergyman in Rhode Island, and followed by cohabitation in Massachusetts, is valid everywhere.
    2. Same—Consent.
    A woman cannot silently withhold her consent to a formal marriage and treat it as a good marriage subsequently, and annul the marriage because it was not real and binding upon her.
    Motion for reargument.
    This was an appeal from an order vacating a judgment annulling the marriage between the parties hereto, and allowing the defendant to interpose her defense. This court reversed the order. See 50 St. Rep., 33.
    
      Ayres & Walker, for motion; George Zabriskie, opposed.
   Barnard, P. J.

— The law of Massachusetts cited the defendant has no relevancy. The defendant was married to Morrison by a ceremonial marriage performed by the Rev. Dr. Taylor in Rhode Island. The marriage was followed by cohabitation •as husband and wife in Massachusetts. Such a marriage is good everywhere. If the ceremony had been performed in Massachusetts, and been followed by cohabitation in that state, there is no law of Massachusetts which would treat the marriage as void. The case must be treated as if such was the fact. The formal marriage in Providence was binding in that state, and if good where it was performed, it was good elsewhere. The pretense that the defendant did not consent to the marriage in Rhode Island has no weight. It is not pretended that such fact was •communicated to the clergyman who performed the ceremony. Morrison did not so understand it, for he demanded his wife .of her parents by force of it; and the fact that Mrs. Morrison yielded to the demand concludes her. It cannot be accepted by the courts that a woman may silently withhold her assent to a formal marriage and treat it as a good marriage subsequently, and annul the marriage because it was not real and binding on her.

The motion should be denied.

Pratt and Dykman, JJ., concur.  