{ "id": 8656617, "name": "MORRISON v. TEAGUE", "name_abbreviation": "Morrison v. Teague", "decision_date": "1906-11-27", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "186", "last_page": "188", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "143 N.C. 186" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "133 N. C., 312", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8657367 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/133/0312-01" ] }, { "cite": "140 N. C., 157", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8651670 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/140/0157-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 307, "char_count": 4895, "ocr_confidence": 0.418, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.1564264340446778e-07, "percentile": 0.5830212495014188 }, "sha256": "73786197a060af11718d2d13209cb2ec8bbdf8e773d742251eec11c9756001cf", "simhash": "1:e5674d7920b0ce6b", "word_count": 839 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:13:26.496500+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "MORRISON v. TEAGUE." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "BbowN, J.\nTbe plaintiff testified tbat bis daughter, Ina May, was seventeen years four months and six days old when she was married to Boss Kennedy, her first cousin, who resided in Nebraska, and tbat she bad tbe appearance of a well-developed woman; tbat she lived in Iredell County with plaintiff, some twelve miles from Taylorsville and eight miles from Statesville. Tbe defendant Teague, Begister of Deeds of Alexander County, issued tbe marriage license, upon tbe application of Boss Kennedy, and under it the marriage was duly solemnized in said county. At tbe time tbe application was made for tbe license tbe young lady was not present, and as there is no evidence tbat the Begister knew her, we think her physical appearance may be considered as irrelevant.\nWhat transpired at tbe time Kennedy applied for license appears solely in tbe testimony of witness Matherson, as follows: \u201cI live in Taylorsville; in April, 1905, I was in tbe office of tbe Begister of Deeds, Mr. Teague, with Mr. Long, when be asked Mr. Teague about issuing tbe license. Teague said be bad no written permission; said be inquired of Kennedy and a man with him about tbe girl\u2019s age; said be knew neither of them, but issued tbe license and made no further inquiry of any one.\u201d Cross-examined: \u201cTeague said be made inquiry of them why they applied for license in Tay-lorsville; be said they said tbe girl lived in an adjoining county, and tbat it was nearer to Taylorsville than it was to Statesville; tbat be inquired of both; said they appeared to be nice, decent men; be said they both said they knew her age and she was over eighteen years of age, and said Kennedy swore she was.\u201d Defendant offered no evidence.\nPlaintiff requested tbe Court to charge the jury as matter of law that defendant Teague in any view of the evidence failed to make reasonable inquiry as to the age of plaintiff\u2019s daughter. Refused. Plaintiff excepted. The Court, instructed the jury that the evidence being uncontradicted, he held as a matter of law that' the defendant had made reasonable inquiry as to the age of Ina May Morrison, and if the jury believed the evidence they would answer the third issue \u201cNo,\u201d and the fourth issue, \u201cNothing.\u201d Plaintiff excepted.\nThe learned counsel for the defendant, Mr. Qwaltney, most earnestly contended in his argument that upon a fair interpretation of the words \u201creasonable inquiry,\u201d the charge of his Honor should be sustained. Notwithstanding we find ourselves unable to reconcile this view with very recent decisions of this Court, we agree with counsel that upon the evidence in the record the question was one of law, and that his Honor was correct in so holding. The uncontradicted evidence shows that the Register took the word of the prospective bridegroom and his friend as to the age of the young lady and made no further inquiry of any one; that the Register did not know either Kennedy or his friend. The Register\u2019s suspicions seem to have been aroused, for he inquired why they applied for license in Taylorsville, as the girl lived in Iredell; nevertheless, he made no further inquiry.\nWe think that under our decisions his Honor should have given the plaintiff\u2019s prayer for instruction, and that he erred in the instruction he gave. The subject is fully discussed by Mr. Justice Gonnor in Furr v. Johnson, 140 N. C., 157; Trolinger v. Boroughs, 133 N. C., 312.\nPossibly on the next trial defendant may offer evidence which will tend to prove that he made reasonable inquiry. In this record there is none.\nNew Trial.", "type": "majority", "author": "BbowN, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "B. B. Burke, L. G. Caldwell, Z. V. Long, and Harry P. Grier for tbe plaintiff.", "J. L. Gwaltney, J. H. Burke and B. Z. Linney for tbe defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "MORRISON v. TEAGUE.\n(Filed November 27, 1906).\nMarriage. Licenses \u2014 Register of Deeds \u2014 Reasonable In- \u25a0 quiry \u2014 Question of Law.\nIn an action against a Register of Deeds to recover the penalty under Revisal, sec. 2090, for issuing a marriage license contrary to its provisions, where the uncontradicted evidence showed that the Register took the word of the prospective bridegroom and his friend, neither of whom he knew, as to the age of the young lady, and made no further inquiry of any one, the Court should have given the plaintiff\u2019s prayer for instruction that as a matter of law defendant failed to make reasonable inquiry as to the age of plaintiff\u2019s daughter.\nAotioN by State on relation of W. P. Morrison against Gr. C. Teague and sureties on his official bond, heard by Judge Henry R. Brymi and a jury, at the October Term, 1906, of the Superior Court of ALEXANDER.\nAction to recover penalty under sec. 2090, Revisal, for issuing marriage license for the marriage of relator\u2019s daugh-' ter, under the age of eighteen, without the written consent of relator and without having made reasonable inquiry before issuing the license as required by law. From the verdict and judgment rendered, relator appealed.\nB. B. Burke, L. G. Caldwell, Z. V. Long, and Harry P. Grier for tbe plaintiff.\nJ. L. Gwaltney, J. H. Burke and B. Z. Linney for tbe defendant." }, "file_name": "0186-01", "first_page_order": 226, "last_page_order": 228 }