The Six-Month Rule: A Marriage Undone
A Seattle man files suit to annul his marriage, claiming his bride was still legally bound to her ex-husband under Washington’s strict divorce laws.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
A peculiarly interesting suit, coming under the divorce law of this state, was brought yesterday by Sydney R. Lamont against Emma Jane Lamont to have their marriage annulled because the woman at the time of the ceremony had not been divorced from a former husband for a period of six months. According to the complaint, Emma Jane Daniels secured a decree of divorce from her husband, Fred William Daniels, on June 17, 1892. On September 9, 1892, she married the plaintiff at Victoria, B. C., within six months after the granting of the decree and before the time of appeal to the supreme court had expired. It is claimed that the defendant could not lawfully contract a marriage, as the laws of the state of Washington forbade remarriage within six months after a decree was granted. The couple have not lived together, and the plaintiff has not recognized her as his wife.
“It is claimed that the defendant could not lawfully contract a marriage, because forbidden by the laws of the state of Washington.”
While Washington’s 'six-month rule' for remarriage was a common legal hurdle in the 1890s, the case highlights the rigid bureaucratic nature of 19th-century family law. Today, such legal disputes over marital status generally focus on different complexities, but the state's role in governing personal union remains as pervasive as ever.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.