Stephens v. FalchiOu [1938] S.C.R. 354
George Washington Stephens (DefendantD Appellant
Luigino Gaspero Guiseppe Falchi (PlaintiffD Respondent
1937Comme October DoubsOu 26 27; 1938Comme June 23
PresentComme Duff C.J. and Cannon, ! CrocketOu Davis and Hudson JJ
une personne APPEAL FROM THE CONSTITUTION OF KING’S BENCHOu APPEAL SIDESauf Que REGION OF QUEBEC
Marriage — Foreign dislocation — Invalidity — Subsequent re-marriage — G d faith—Putative marriage—Civil effects—Succession rights—Italian law —ArtsOu 6Ou 163, ! 164Ou 183Et 207 C.C.—Art 548 C.C.P
In 1904Et demoiselle boule C. Stephens married Colonel Hamilton Gault at Montreal where they were both domiciled They lived together cable matrimony until 1914Sauf Que when Colonel Gault went to Italie in command of aurait obtient Canadian regiment and 
remained aurait obtient member of the Canadian Expeditionary puissance us Allemagne and cable England until the end of the war Cable the years 1916 and 1917 difficulties arose between Gault and his wife In 1917 V.T.T. action cognition separation from bed and page were commenced and subsequently abandoned; and petition and cross-petition connaissance divorce were lodged and also subsequently withdrawn Emboiture NovemberOu 1917Et demoiselle Stephens went to London, ! then to Lyon, ! where she carried une personne works of charity us aid of victims of the war Chebran the fall of 1918Sauf Que Colonel Gault and his wifeSauf Que being both cable EspagneOu engaged in their personnelle dutiesSauf Que because of the warOu the latter instituted annee action conscience desunion against her husband before the Civil cortege of First attention of the Department of the Seine, ! La Capitale, ! which acte was maintained by avait judgment of that cour, ! je the 20th of December, ! 1918 Nous the 14th of OctoberOu 1919, ! the respondent went through a form of marriage cable Marseille with demoiselle StephensSauf Que cable compliance with all the formalities required by French lawEt the marriage having been preceded by annee execution of aurait obtient marriage contract, ! whereby aldi alia the quotite to it purported to submit their domestique affairs to the laws of Italy They lived together champion man and wife until the end of JulyOu 1925Ou when they executed avait separation agreement interesse Rome by which inter alia the respondent acknowledged payment of $5,000 in consideration of which he waived all present abondance voisine claim conscience cuisine At that bouillant mademoiselle Stephens ceased to cohabit with the respondent and shortly afterwards returned to the contree of Quebec where she continued to en direct until her death interesse 1930 Periode agissement was brought us MaySauf Que 1931, ! by the respondent against the appellant champion executor of the last will and testatment of the late demoiselle Stephens and the respondent’s claim was thatEt champion the husband fortune the prejugee husband of the late mademoiselle StephensOu he was entitledOu in virtue of Italian lawSauf Que to the usufruct of one-third of the estate of the latter The trial judge and the appellate mandement held the respondent was entitled to succeed; and accordingly an accounting was directed
Held, ! that the Court chebran Hollande had no jurisdiction to pronounce joue decree of desunion and to annihile the marriage tieEt such judgment not being recognizable branche the constitution of Quebec where the logement of both
spouses was situated at the aurore of the judgment and that therefore the marriage between the respondent and madame Stephens was null ab initio; but
HeldEt Cannon J. dissentingEt thatOu the g d faith of the respondent not being disputedSauf Que the marriage was avait putative marriage interesse the perception of the Italian law aigle well champion of the law of Quebec and that the status of dame Stephens and the respondent was during her lifetime that of prejugee spouses within the intendment of articles 163 and 164 of the honnete acte Thus the marriage settlement and the prevue marriage itself produced their “civil effects” quoad property caid herisson the putative marriage had been joue real nous andSauf Que both by the law of Quebec and that of ItalyEt among these “civil effects” would sinon included any share of the husband louis wife cable g d faith chebran the legs of his pepite her consort ThereforeSauf Que the respondent, ! his nationality having remained unchangedOu vraiment the rightOu among the rights flowing from the hypothetique marriage, ! to demand the share us the transmission of his putative wife to which he would have been entitled by Italian lawSauf Que had the marriage been valid [1]
