All marriages between any two persons nearer of kin than first cousins, or between double first cousins, or between a male person under 16 years of age and any female, or between a female person under 16 years of age and any male, or between persons either of whom has a husband or wife living at the time of such marriage, or between persons either of whom is at the time physically impotent, or between persons either of whom is at the time incapable of contracting from want of will or understanding, shall be void. No marriage followed by cohabitation and the birth of issue shall be declared void after the death of either of the parties for any of the causes stated in this section except for bigamy. A marriage contracted under a representation and belief that the female partner to the marriage is pregnant, followed by the separation of the parties within 45 days of the marriage which separation has been continuous for a period of one year, shall be voidable unless a child shall have been born to the parties within 10 lunar months of the date of separation. (R.C., c. 68, ss. 7, 8, 9; 1871-2, c. 193, s. 2; Code, s. 1810; 1887, c. 245; Rev., s. 2083; 1911, c. 215, s. 2; 1913, c. 123; 1917, c. 135; C.S., s. 2495; 1947, c. 383, s. 3; 1949, c. 1022; 1953, c. 1105; 1961, c. 367; 1977, c. 107, s. 1; 2021-119, s. 3.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
23
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1944–2023 · leading case:
Mussa v. Palmer-Mussa, 731 S.E.2d 404 (N.C. 2012).
Mussa v. Palmer-Mussa, 731 S.E.2d 404 (N.C. 2012).
· cites it 8× “*193 Thus, plaintiff argues that his marriage to defendant is bigamous and void because, as defendant admitted at trial, she had not dissolved her marriage to Braswell and Braswell was alive when she married plaintiff.”
Mayer v. Mayer, 311 S.E.2d 659 (N.C. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 8× “Victor Mayer first cites N.C. Gen. Stat. § 51-3 (Supp. 1983), which states that “all marriages .”
Carpenter v. Carpenter, 93 S.E.2d 617 (N.C. 1956).
· cites it 9× “*629 G.S. § 51-3 provides: "All marriages * * * between persons either of whom has a husband or wife living at the time of such marriage * * * shall be void".”
Taylor v. Taylor, 362 S.E.2d 542 (N.C. 1987).
· cites it 6× “N.C.G.S. § 51-3 (1984) (“All marriages . .”
Clark v. Foust-Graham, 615 S.E.2d 398 (N.C. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 12× “” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 51-3 (2003). A plain reading of this statute evinces the Legislature’s intent to bar a postmortem annulment action brought by a sufficiently interested party only if (1) one of the spouses in a void or voidable marriage has died, and (2) the marriage was…”
Piazza v. Kirkbride, 827 S.E.2d 479 (N.C. 2019).
· cites it 2× “Gray Wilson, North Carolina Civil Procedure § 51-3, at 51-8 n.52 (3d ed. 2007). -28- PIAZZA V.”
Bostic v. Schaefer, 760 F.3d 352 (4th Cir. 2014).
“Law § 2-202 ; N.C. Gen. Stat. § 51-3 ; S.C.Code Ann. § 20-1-10; Va.”
Ivery v. Ivery, 129 S.E.2d 457 (N.C. 1963).
· cites it 10× “— All marriages between a white person and a negro or Indian, or between a white person and person of negro or Indian descent to the third generation, inclusive, or between a Cherokee Indian of Robeson County and a negro, or between a Cherokee Indian of Robeson County and a…”
Pickard v. Pickard, 625 S.E.2d 869 (N.C. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 4× “The statute provides: The district court, during a session of court, on application made as by law provided, by either party to a marriage contracted contrary to the prohibitions contained in the Chapter entitled Marriage, or declared void by said Chapter, may declare such…”
Chance v. Henderson, 518 S.E.2d 780 (N.C. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 2× “The theory behind the equitable estoppel doctrine is not to make legally valid a void divorce or to make an invalid marriage valid, but rather, to prevent one from.”
Wiseman v. Wiseman, 314 S.E.2d 566 (N.C. Ct. App. 1984).
“Petitioner contends that the jury was erroneously instructed that a second or subsequent marriage is presumed valid because such a presumption is in “direct violation” of G.S. 51-3, which provides that all marriages between any two persons either of whom “has a husband or wife…”
Fungaroli v. Fungaroli, 280 S.E.2d 787 (N.C. Ct. App. 1981).
“See G.S. 51-3; 1 Lee, N.C. Family Law § 17 (4th ed.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.